jira-xray-cloud-mcp

Xray Add Tests To Test Plan

xray_add_tests_to_test_plan

Idempotent

Add one or more existing tests to a Jira Xray Cloud test plan by issue key or numeric ID, keeping test coverage organized within the plan.

Instructions

Add Tests to a Test Plan.

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_plan": "<test_plan>",
      "tests": "<tests>"
    },
    "name": "xray_add_tests_to_test_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

C2.3/5.0

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/idempotency profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on duplicate handling (relevant given idempotentHint), no auth/permission requirements, no effect on existing plan membership.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the single sentence is a verbatim echo of the name rather than an efficient information payload, so brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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?

The tool has a clear mutation semantic and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a write operation with no description-level guidance on behavior (duplicates, limits, ordering), the definition is too thin to let an agent invoke it confidently.

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 both parameters (test_plan, tests) are fully documented in the schema with key/id format examples. The description contributes no additional meaning, which matches the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Add Tests to a Test Plan.' is a direct restatement of the tool name (xray_add_tests_to_test_plan) and title, adding no distinguishing information. It conveys the verb and resource only because the name already does.

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 guidance on when to use this versus siblings such as xray_remove_tests_from_test_plan or xray_add_test_executions_to_test_plan. No prerequisites, no mention of what happens when a test is already in the plan, no alternative routing.

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

Deploy Server