jira-xray-cloud-mcp

Xray Get Import Tests Status

xray_get_import_tests_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve status, progress, and per-test results or errors for a bulk test import job using its job ID. Monitor import completion and troubleshoot failures.

Instructions

Get status, progress and per-test results/errors of a bulk test import job.

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": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>"
    },
    "name": "xray_get_import_tests_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`job_id`	Yes	jobId returned by xray_import_tests_bulk.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that it surfaces progress and per-test errors, but with an output schema present the shape of those returns is partly already documented.

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 that names the resource and the payload categories with no wasted words. Optimal length for a one-parameter status tool.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values; it correctly points at the job_id source. It is complete for calling the tool, though it could note polling/retry expectations for a job-status endpoint.

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?

Only one parameter, documented at 100% coverage in the schema with its origin (jobId from xray_import_tests_bulk). The description does not add format, type, or retrieval semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (status/progress of a bulk test import job), and explicitly enumerates what is returned (progress, per-test results/errors). It is immediately distinguishable from the many get_* siblings because it scopes to an import job rather than a test, plan, or run.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The schema links job_id to the output of xray_import_tests_bulk, which implies this is a follow-up/polling call, but neither description nor schema states when to call it (frequency, after queuing) or contrasts it with other alternatives. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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

Deploy Server