Skip to main content
Glama

create_test_plan

Create a Zephyr Scale test plan by specifying name, owner, folder, and status. The folder must already exist; returns the plan key.

Instructions

Create a test plan (POST /testplan). folder must be a TEST_PLAN folder (create_folder with type TEST_PLAN) — The folder MUST already exist — the API never creates folders implicitly (use create_folder first). status is a case-sensitive internal name. owner: Jira user key (e.g. 'JIRAUSER10000'), NOT a username or e-mail — resolve it with find_jira_user. Returns { key } (e.g. "PROJ-P123") — no UI url, because the test plan page has no stable address across Zephyr Scale versions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesTest plan name
ownerNoOwner. Jira *user key* (e.g. 'JIRAUSER10000'), NOT a username or e-mail — resolve it with find_jira_user.
folderNoFull path of a TEST_PLAN folder from the root starting with "/", e.g. "/Releases/2026". The folder MUST already exist — the API never creates folders implicitly (use create_folder first).
labelsNoLabels; the API replaces spaces with underscores
statusNoTest plan status. Defaults: 'Draft', 'Approved', 'Deprecated' — case-sensitive; instances may define custom ones. Plan statuses are their OWN option set: get_status_options cannot list them (it has no test_plan optionSet) and the test CASE statuses it returns are rejected here with 400 "The value <x> was not found for field status."
objectiveNoObjective (HTML allowed)
issueLinksNoJira issue keys to link, e.g. ["PROJ-123"]
projectKeyNoJira project key, e.g. "PROJ"; defaults to ZEPHYR_DEFAULT_PROJECT_KEY when omitted
customFieldsNoCustom field values keyed by field name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.5

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With empty annotations the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the return shape { key } and why no UI url is given, the fact that the API never creates folders implicitly, and non-obvious error behavior (case-sensitive status, 400 when a case status is supplied, get_status_options unable to list plan statuses). This is well beyond what structured fields provide.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded, but the body is dense with em-dashes and parentheticals, and it duplicates schema descriptions for owner, folder, and status almost word-for-word. That redundancy works against conciseness even though the information itself is useful.

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

Completeness4/5

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

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by documenting the return value ({ key }). For a 9-parameter tool with nested customFields it covers prerequisites and key quirks but says nothing about auth/permission needs, leaving a small gap.

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 nine parameters, and the description's owner/folder/status text is largely repeated verbatim from the schema. It adds only marginal semantic value (status option-set quirk) beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline 3.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a test plan') and even names the endpoint (POST /testplan), which cleanly separates it from create_test_case, create_test_run, and create_folder in the sibling list. An agent can identify the operation without inspecting the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives explicit prerequisites and routes the agent to other tools: the folder must already exist and be created with create_folder (type TEST_PLAN), and owner must be resolved with find_jira_user. It does not state when *not* to use this tool versus update_test_plan, so it stops short of a full 5, but the preconditions are clear.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools