jira-xray-cloud-mcp

Xray Remove Test Run Evidence

xray_remove_test_run_evidence

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete selected evidence files or evidence IDs from an Xray Cloud test run to clean up execution records.

Instructions

Remove evidence from a test run by id and/or filename.

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_run_id": "<test_run_id>"
    },
    "name": "xray_remove_test_run_evidence"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`test_run_id`	Yes	Test run id, from xray_get_test_execution or xray_get_test_runs.
`evidence_ids`	No
`evidence_filenames`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the id/filename selection clause but says nothing about permanence, behavior when an id matches nothing, or whether passing both selectors is allowed.

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 with zero filler; verb, resource, and selectors are all stated immediately.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the destructive/idempotent profile. Still, for a destructive mutation the description leaves unclear what happens on partial matches or how id and filename selectors interact.

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 coverage is only 33%: evidence_ids and evidence_filenames have no schema descriptions. The phrase 'by id and/or filename' does explain that either or both selectors may drive the removal, which is real added meaning, but it doesn't clarify array semantics, matching behavior, or mutual exclusion.

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 (remove), resource (evidence), and scope (from a test run), with the selectors named. It is clearly the inverse of the sibling xray_add_test_run_evidence, though it doesn't name that sibling to make the pairing explicit.

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, and no reference to alternatives such as xray_add_test_run_evidence or xray_get_test_runs for finding evidence. The agent must infer context 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