jira-xray-cloud-mcp

Xray Get Project Settings

xray_get_project_settings

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve Xray test management settings for Jira projects, including test types, environments, coverage, step fields, and test run custom fields.

Instructions

Get Xray project settings: test types, test environments, coverage, step fields, test run custom fields.

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": {
      "projects": "<projects>"
    },
    "name": "xray_get_project_settings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projects`	Yes	Jira project keys or ids.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and repeat-call profile is fully covered. The description adds only the set of configuration categories returned; it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or whether settings are merged across multiple projects.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the enumerated contents doing useful work rather than padding. Nothing extraneous.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a simple one-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient, though a hint about valid project identifiers or when to prefer this over GraphQL-based queries would close the remaining gap.

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% and the single 'projects' array parameter is documented as 'Jira project keys or ids'. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 (Xray project settings), then enumerates exactly what the settings comprise: test types, test environments, coverage, step fields, test run custom fields. No sibling tool retrieves project-level settings, so the agent can distinguish it immediately.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that a valid Jira project key is needed), and no mention of alternatives. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the listed return contents.

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

Deploy Server