jira-xray-cloud-mcp

Xray Update Test Run Step

xray_update_test_run_step

Idempotent

Records or updates a Jira Xray test run step result, capturing status, comment, actual result, linked defects, and evidence.

Instructions

Record the result of one test run step: status, comment, actual result, defects and evidence.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	No	Step status name, e.g. 'PASSED'.
`comment`	No
`step_id`	Yes	Step id of the test run step, from xray_get_test_run.
`add_defects`	No	Defect keys or ids to link.
`test_run_id`	Yes	Test run id, from xray_get_test_execution or xray_get_test_runs.
`add_evidence`	No
`actual_result`	No
`iteration_rank`	No	Iteration rank for data-driven runs, from xray_get_test_run.
`remove_defects`	No	Defect keys or ids to unlink.
`remove_evidence_ids`	No
`remove_evidence_filenames`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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 safety is covered. The description adds that a step result is recorded, but does not disclose the incremental add/remove semantics implied by the schema or what happens on repeat calls.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding. Efficient, though the brevity is part of why the parameter and usage gaps go unfilled.

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 not be explained, but for a mutation tool with 11 parameters and partial schema coverage the description leaves the add/remove mechanics and iteration handling undocumented.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 55% across 11 parameters, and the description merely restates field names already present in the schema. It does not explain the add_/remove_ pairs, iteration_rank's role in data-driven runs, or the base64-vs-attachment_id choice for evidence.

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 and resource ('Record the result of one test run step') and enumerates the fields it writes. This is enough to distinguish it from xray_update_test_run and xray_update_test_step, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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, no mention of alternatives. With siblings like xray_update_test_run, xray_update_test_run_defects, and xray_add_test_run_evidence nearby, the agent gets no help deciding which tool applies.

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

Deploy Server