xray_update_test_stepUpdate the action, data, or expected result of a manual test step using its step ID. Ensure test steps are accurate in Xray Cloud.
Update action, data and/or expected result of a manual test step.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| action | No | ||
| result | No | ||
| step_id | Yes | Step id, from xray_get_test. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the mutation is not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds the useful detail that updates are partial ('and/or'), implying unspecified fields are untouched, but it does not explain permissions, whether step_id must already exist, or what happens on an unknown id.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence with the resource and fields front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is arguably a touch terse given the gaps elsewhere.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 described. However, for a mutation tool with 25% parameter coverage, the definition omits step existence requirements and failure behavior, leaving the agent to guess how partial updates interact with omitted fields.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25%: step_id is documented in the schema, while data, action, and result have no schema descriptions. The description names those three fields and implies they are optional and independently updatable, which partially compensates for the gap but gives no format or length details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (update) and resource (a manual test step) plus the exact fields affected (action, data, expected result). It is distinguishable from the sibling xray_update_test_run_step, though it never says so explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as xray_add_test_step or xray_remove_test_step. Usage is left entirely to inference from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.