JIRA Zephyr MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific Zephyr test management resources and actions. The tools cover creation, retrieval, listing, execution, reporting, and linking operations with no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern throughout (e.g., create_test_case, list_test_cycles, get_test_execution_status). The naming convention is perfectly uniform and predictable across all 13 tools.
Tool Count5/5
With 13 tools, this server is well-scoped for comprehensive test management operations in Zephyr. Each tool earns its place by covering distinct aspects of test case, test cycle, test plan, and execution management without being excessive.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete CRUD/lifecycle coverage for Zephyr test management, including creation, reading, listing, updating (via execute_test), and reporting operations. It also integrates with JIRA issues and covers all major workflows without any apparent gaps.
Average 2.9/5 across 13 of 13 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Generate' implies a read-only or creation operation, but the description doesn't specify if it's a read (e.g., retrieving a report) or a write (e.g., creating a new report), nor does it cover permissions, side effects, or output format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient phrase ('Generate test execution report') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of generating a report (which may involve data processing and formatting), the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the report contains, how it's generated, or what the return value looks like, leaving critical gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'cycleId' and 'format' (including enum values and default). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating or adding extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Generate test execution report' states the verb ('Generate') and resource ('test execution report'), which provides a basic understanding of the tool's purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes a 'test execution report' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_test_execution_status' or 'execute_test', making it somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a test cycle ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_test_execution_status' or 'execute_test', leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List') but does not mention critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset but not explained), error conditions, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence ('List existing test plans'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a list operation with parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances, relying solely on the input schema. For a tool with no structured behavioral hints, this leaves the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters (projectKey, limit, offset) with their types and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List existing test plans' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('test plans'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about scope (e.g., all test plans vs. filtered) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_test_cycles' or 'search_test_cases', leaving room for ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_test_cases' or 'list_test_cycles'. The description implies usage for listing test plans but offers no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose whether this is a write operation (implied but not stated), what permissions are required, how errors are handled, rate limits, or what the response format looks like. 'Create multiple... at once' suggests batch processing but lacks operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with comprehensive schema documentation and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a batch creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens on partial success (though the 'continueOnError' parameter hints at this), what the return value contains, error conditions, or system limitations. The schema does heavy lifting, but the description should provide more operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already documented in the comprehensive schema, which details all fields, requirements, and optional parameters including the complex testScript object structure.
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 clearly states the action ('create multiple test cases') and target system ('in Zephyr'), with the 'at once' phrase distinguishing it from the sibling 'create_test_case' tool. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the batch nature or contrast with the single-case sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the 'create_test_case' sibling, nor any prerequisites, error handling considerations, or system constraints. The description merely restates the tool's name without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't mention required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the response looks like (especially important since there's no output schema). For a mutation tool with 12 parameters, this is a significant transparency gap.
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?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, for a tool with 12 parameters and complex nested objects, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness, preventing a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters with nested objects), absence of annotations, and lack of output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the relationship between this tool and sibling tools, doesn't provide behavioral context for a mutation operation, and offers no guidance on error handling or response format. The description fails to compensate for the missing structured information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.
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 clearly states the action ('Create a new test case') and the target system ('in Zephyr'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'create_multiple_test_cases' or explain when to use one versus the other, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_multiple_test_cases' for batch operations or 'create_test_cycle'/'create_test_plan' for related test management functions. There's no mention of prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with insufficient context for appropriate tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether this creates a draft or active cycle, what happens on duplicate names, or what the expected response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a creation tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a test cycle is in this system, what happens after creation, or how this fits into the broader testing workflow. The agent would need to guess about behavioral aspects and expected outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., how projectKey and versionId relate) or providing examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the action ('create') and resource ('new test execution cycle'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'create_test_plan' or explain what differentiates a test cycle from other test artifacts in the system.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_test_plan' or 'list_test_cycles'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, sequencing (e.g., should a test plan exist first?), or typical workflow context, leaving the agent to infer usage patterns from tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a new test plan, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether creation is idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a plan ID). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Create a new test plan') and specifies the context ('in Zephyr'). There is zero waste or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, and it's appropriately sized for a simple creation tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a write operation with 5 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions or outcomes, and while the schema documents parameters, the description fails to add context for usage or integration with siblings. For a creation tool in a test management system, more guidance is needed to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters documented (e.g., 'name', 'projectKey', optional dates in ISO format). The description doesn't explain parameter relationships, constraints, or usage examples. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.
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 clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('new test plan in Zephyr'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_test_case' or 'create_test_cycle' by specifying it's for test plans, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The description avoids tautology by not just restating the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a JIRA project), compare to similar tools like 'list_test_plans' for viewing existing plans, or specify use cases (e.g., for organizing test cases). Usage is implied only by the action 'create', with no explicit context or exclusions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't state whether this requires specific permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing data not mentioned, or any rate limits. It lacks critical context for a mutation tool, such as side effects or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update test execution results'), making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 4 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or error handling, nor does it explain return values or usage context. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (executionId, status, comment, defects) with descriptions and constraints. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'Update test execution results' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (test execution results). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_test_execution_status' (read-only) and 'create_test_cycle' (creation rather than updating). However, it doesn't specify what aspects are updated beyond 'results' (e.g., status, comments, defects), which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing executionId), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new executions), or explicit alternatives among siblings like 'get_test_execution_status' for reading status or 'link_tests_to_issues' for linking defects. Usage is implied only by the verb 'update'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'detailed information' but doesn't specify what details are included (e.g., metadata, steps, results), whether it's a read-only operation, or any constraints like authentication needs or rate limits. This leaves behavioral traits unclear for a tool that likely queries a database.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. This efficiency is ideal for a simple retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a test case retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' entails, the return format, or error handling, which are crucial for an agent to use this effectively in a testing context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'testCaseId' documented as 'Test case ID or key'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to find the ID. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific test case'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'search_test_cases' or 'get_test_execution_status', which might also retrieve test case information but with different scopes or formats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'search_test_cases' (for multiple cases) and 'get_test_execution_status' (for status info), there's no indication that this tool is for single-case details, leaving the agent to guess based on context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'progress and statistics' but doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only operation, what data format is returned, if there are rate limits, or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with test execution data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'progress and statistics' entail (e.g., metrics, statuses, timestamps), how results are structured, or potential errors. For a tool with one parameter but no output details, this leaves too much unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'cycleId' documented as 'Test cycle ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline for adequate but unremarkable coverage when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('test execution progress and statistics'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'execute_test' or 'generate_test_report', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a test cycle ID), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like 'list_test_cycles' or 'execute_test', leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'associates' test cases with issues, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't specify whether this creates new links, overwrites existing ones, requires permissions, or has side effects (e.g., updating JIRA issue status). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose efficiently, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation linking two systems), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or return values, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use it correctly. For a tool with this context, more detail is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples, constraints, or usage context for parameters). According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.
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 clearly states the action ('Associate') and resources ('test cases with JIRA issues'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_test_case' or 'read_jira_issue' by focusing on linking existing entities. However, it doesn't specify the directionality or nature of the association (e.g., bidirectional linking, adding tests to issues), which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing test cases and JIRA issues), exclusions, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'execute_test' or 'generate_test_report'. Without context, an agent might misuse it or overlook related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the execution status information takes. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a listing tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'execution status' entails, doesn't mention authentication requirements, and provides no guidance on result format or limitations. The description should do more to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without providing additional value.
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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('existing test cycles') with the additional qualifier 'with execution status', which provides specific functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_test_plans' or 'search_test_cases', which would require more specific scope definition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_test_plans' or 'search_test_cases'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions that would help an agent choose between these similar listing/searching tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Read' implies a safe operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details and metadata' includes (e.g., fields like status, assignee, comments). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with two parameters. It doesn't explain the return format, error cases, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters (issueKey and fields). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of common fields or default behavior when 'fields' is omitted. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the verb ('Read') and resource ('JIRA issue details and metadata'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_test_case' or 'get_test_execution_status' that might also read JIRA data, missing explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'link_tests_to_issues' and 'search_test_cases' that might involve JIRA issues, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this read operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'search' but doesn't specify if this is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or describes the return format (e.g., pagination, error handling). This is a significant gap for a tool with parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or result format, which are crucial for an agent to use it correctly in a search operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying a search context, which is already clear from the name and schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the action ('Search for') and resource ('test cases in a project'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_test_case' or 'list_test_plans', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_test_case' or 'list_test_plans'. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![jira-zephyr-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/leorosignoli/jira-zephyr-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/leorosignoli/jira-zephyr-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![jira-zephyr-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/leorosignoli/jira-zephyr-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/leorosignoli/jira-zephyr-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/leorosignoli/jira-zephyr-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server