testit-mcp-server

create_work_item

Creates a TestIT test case, checklist, or shared step with steps, preconditions, tags, attributes, and priority, so you can define reusable work items directly from your MCP client.

Instructions

Create a test case, checklist or shared step. Defaults: entityTypeName=TestCases, state=NotReady, priority=Medium, duration=60000 ms (always 0 for SharedSteps — required by TestIT). Extra CreateWorkItemApiModel fields can be passed in "payload".

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_work_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Work item name.
`tags`	No	Tag names.
`state`	No
`steps`	No
`payload`	No	Raw CreateWorkItemApiModel fields; typed args take precedence.
`duration`	No	Duration in ms (1..86400000; 0 for SharedSteps).
`priority`	No
`projectId`	No	Project UUID (defaults to TESTIT_PROJECT_ID).
`sectionId`	No	Section UUID (root section if omitted).
`attributes`	No	Custom attributes {attributeId: value}.
`description`	No
`projectName`	No	Project name (alternative to projectId).
`attachmentIds`	No	Attachment UUIDs from upload_attachment.
`entityTypeName`	No
`preconditionSteps`	No
`postconditionSteps`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: default field values and the hard constraint that duration must be 0 for SharedSteps. It stops short of noting that repeated calls will create duplicates (non-idempotent consequences) or permission requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences with the core action and the most consequential defaults front-loaded. It is dense but every clause carries information; nothing is redundant padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 16-parameter tool with nested step objects and no output schema, the description covers defaults and the payload escape hatch but omits what a successful call returns, the projectId/projectName relationship, and how steps vs preconditionSteps vs postconditionSteps relate. Adequate but with clear gaps given the complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 56%, so the description compensates by supplying default values for entityTypeName, state, priority and duration that the schema does not state, plus the SharedSteps duration rule and the precedence of typed args over 'payload'. It leaves other parameters (projectName vs projectId, attachmentIds, attributes) unelaborated.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the specific verb and the three resources it can create (test case, checklist, shared step), which maps directly onto entityTypeName. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling creators like create_test_suite or create_test_plan, but an agent can tell what this tool produces.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies usage through the defaults and notes that typed args take precedence over the 'payload' escape hatch, which is useful routing guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-another-creator guidance and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a project or valid section.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server