jira-xray-cloud-mcp

Xray Add Tests To Test Set

xray_add_tests_to_test_set

Idempotent

Add tests to a test set in Xray Cloud using Jira issue keys or IDs to organize test execution.

Instructions

Add Tests to a Test Set.

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_set": "<test_set>",
      "tests": "<tests>"
    },
    "name": "xray_add_tests_to_test_set"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

C2.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that – it does not explain what happens on repeat calls, whether existing memberships are preserved, or what the operation returns.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is one short sentence, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no wasted wording because there is almost no wording at all; nothing is front-loaded because nothing is provided.

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 mutation tool in a large family of parallel add/remove operations, the description is far too thin to guide correct selection. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the absence of any behavioral or routing context leaves the definition inadequate.

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 (Jira issue keys or numeric ids). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 Set" essentially restates the tool name and title verbatim. It names a verb and resource, but provides no scope or differentiation from siblings like xray_add_tests_to_test_plan or xray_add_tests_to_precondition, which share the identical 'add tests to X' pattern.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or how it differs from the parallel add/remove tools for test plans, preconditions, and test executions. Usage is only implied by the tool name, and nothing routes the agent among the near-identical siblings.

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

Deploy Server