jira-xray-cloud-mcp

Xray Add Test Environments

xray_add_test_environments

Idempotent

Add test environments to a Jira Xray Test Execution. Unknown environments are created automatically.

Instructions

Add Test Environments to a Test Execution; unknown environments are created.

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": {
      "test_execution": "<test_execution>",
      "test_environments": "<test_environments>"
    },
    "name": "xray_add_test_environments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`test_execution`	Yes	Jira issue key (e.g. 'CALC-12') or numeric issue id.
`test_environments`	Yes	Test Environment names, e.g. ['Chrome', 'staging'].

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing the side effect that unknown environment names will be created rather than rejected.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the action comes first and the non-obvious side effect follows immediately.

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?

With an output schema, full parameter coverage, and annotations in place, the description only needs to supply the missing side-effect information, which it does. It could optionally note whether re-adding an existing environment is a no-op, but idempotentHint already implies this.

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% and both parameters (test_execution as a Jira key/id, test_environments as a name array) are documented in the schema. The description contributes nothing beyond what the schema already says, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Add) and resource (Test Environments to a Test Execution), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling xray_remove_test_environments. It stops short of any explicit sibling routing, but the action and target are unambiguous.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. required permissions on the Test Execution), and does not point to xray_remove_test_environments or xray_add_tests_to_test_execution as alternatives. Usage is only inferable from the name.

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

Deploy Server