jira-xray-cloud-mcp

Xray Add Tests To Precondition

xray_add_tests_to_precondition

Idempotent

Link Jira test issues to an Xray precondition. Use it to associate multiple tests with one prerequisite for organized test management.

Instructions

Link Tests to a Precondition.

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": {
      "precondition": "<precondition>",
      "tests": "<tests>"
    },
    "name": "xray_add_tests_to_precondition"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tests`	Yes	Jira issue keys (e.g. 'CALC-12') or numeric issue ids.
`precondition`	Yes	Jira issue key (e.g. 'CALC-12') or numeric issue id.

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

Behavior2/5

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 the safety/mutability profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — nothing about duplicate handling, permission needs, or what happens if a test is already linked.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is arguably too terse for the information an agent needs, but as conciseness goes it wastes nothing.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the mutation safety profile. Still, for a link operation whose counterpart exists as a sibling, the definition leaves the agent to guess about duplicate links and the unlink path — adequate but not complete.

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 both parameters documented as Jira issue keys or numeric ids, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema (no cardinality note, no ordering semantics for the array).

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 ('Link') and both resources ('Tests', 'Precondition'), so an agent knows exactly what operation occurs. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling xray_remove_tests_from_precondition or the parallel add_tests_to_test_set/test_plan tools, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. the precondition must already exist), and no mention of the inverse operation for unlinking. The agent must infer usage entirely 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