jira-xray-cloud-mcp

Xray Add Test Step

xray_add_test_step

Append a step to a manual Jira Xray Test, adding action, data, expected result, or a Call Test reference.

Instructions

Append a step to a manual Test.

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": "<test>",
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "xray_add_test_step"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No
`test`	Yes	Jira issue key (e.g. 'CALC-12') or numeric issue id.
`action`	Yes
`result`	No
`call_test`	No	Make this a 'Call Test' step calling this Test (key or id).
`version_id`	No	Test version id; default is the current version.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and repeat-call profile. The description reinforces accumulation semantics with 'append', but adds no auth, ordering, or side-effect detail beyond the structured fields.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is also a symptom of the missing detail scored elsewhere.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with half its parameters undocumented, the description is too thin. Output schema means return values need not be explained, but step ordering, the meaning of 'data' vs 'action', and the Call Test option are left entirely to the schema or unstated.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 50%: 'test', 'call_test', and 'version_id' are documented, while 'action', 'result', and especially the ambiguous 'data' are not. The description supplies none of those semantics and gives no hint of the relationship between action, data, and result.

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 and resource: 'Append a step to a manual Test.' Against siblings like xray_update_test_step and xray_remove_test_step, the verb 'append' is reasonably distinguishing. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, but the action is clear.

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 statement of when to use this over xray_update_test_step (edit an existing step) or xray_add_test_step variants. The scope restriction 'manual Test' hints at applicability, but there is no explicit guidance or exclusion.

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

Deploy Server