Skip to main content
Glama

upload_automation_results

Publish automated test execution results from a local ZIP of JSON files to Jira/Zephyr, creating a new test cycle for the project.

Instructions

Publish automated execution results from a local ZIP archive (POST multipart/form-data /automation/execution/{projectKey}). The archive must hold JSON files in Zephyr's custom results format: {"version": 1, "executions": [{"source", "result", "testCase": {"key"}}]}. Validation is strict only at the TOP level of an execution: an extra sibling of source/result such as executionTime is rejected with 400 "Invalid Custom Format JSON file", while an extra field inside "testCase" is silently accepted; "version" is not validated at all and "source" is optional (and readable back through no endpoint). Each execution's "result" is a status name — Default statuses: 'Not Executed', 'In Progress', 'Pass', 'Fail', 'Blocked' — case-sensitive internal names; instances may define custom ones. WARNING (verified live): an UNRECOGNIZED result value is NOT rejected — "PASS", "pass", "FAIL", "" and free text are all stored as Blocked with HTTP 200, so a single typo turns a green suite into a Blocked cycle silently; only an absent "result" key errors (400 "Test Result Status is required"). Test case keys are case-sensitive and must exist: one bad key rejects the whole archive and creates no partial cycle. Two executions of the SAME case become two separate run items, and several JSON files in one ZIP are merged into one cycle. A 400 "Invalid ZIP file" also means a structurally valid archive that contains no JSON at all. Always creates a NEW test cycle (test run) — it never appends to an existing one — and returns the API description of that cycle unchanged, or { uploaded: true } for an empty body.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filePathYesPath of the results .zip archive on the machine running this MCP server (absolute path recommended)
projectKeyNoJira project key, e.g. "PROJ"; defaults to ZEPHYR_DEFAULT_PROJECT_KEY when omitted
autoCreateTestCasesNoCreate the test cases referenced by the results that do not exist in the project yet (server default: false). Omitted from the query string entirely when not passed. Verified live: this only affects executions that identify the case by testCase.name with NO key — an explicit testCase.key that does not exist fails with 400 "Test Case with key X not found." whether the flag is true or false.

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 annotations empty the description carries the full burden, and it delivers exceptional detail: strict top-level validation vs lenient nested fields, the silent 'unrecognized result becomes Blocked with HTTP 200' trap, case-sensitive status names, whole-archive rejection on one bad key, and that it always creates a NEW cycle and never appends. It even documents the return values and the { uploaded: true } empty-body case.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by format, validation behavior, and the WARNING. It is long and dense with nested parentheticals, but nearly every sentence carries distinct operational value; only minor compression would be possible.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a high-complexity tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: return shape, all observed error strings, silent-failure semantics, case sensitivity, and cycle-creation behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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 three parameters, including the autoCreateTestCases key-vs-name nuance. The description's added semantics (testCase.key/name, result statuses) concern the archive contents rather than the three declared parameters, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Publish automated execution results from a local ZIP archive'), names the exact endpoint, and pins the expected archive format (Zephyr's custom results format), which implicitly separates it from the sibling upload_cucumber_results. An agent can identify the operation without opening 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 Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied ('publish automated execution results') and the format constraint hints at the custom-vs-cucumber distinction, but the description never explicitly states when to choose this over upload_cucumber_results or create_test_result/create_test_results_bulk. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated; routing is left to inference.

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