Skip to main content
Glama
qase-tms

Qase MCP Server

Official
by qase-tms
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussions(1)Admin
TypeScript
Remote

Report CI results

qase_ci_report

Report a finished CI run in one call: creates the run in Qase, records each test result, and completes it for consolidated CI reporting.

Instructions

Report a whole finished CI run in one call: creates the run, records every result, completes it. Use qase_result_record instead when the run already exists and results arrive in stages. Each result needs a numeric case_id and a status; batches over 200 are split for you, up to 2000. Cost: three API operations behind one call, about 0.7s for a small run.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesProject code, e.g. DEMO
titleYesRun title (e.g., "CI Build #1234")
resultsYesTest results to record, 1 to 2000 per call
completeNoComplete the run after recording results (default: true)
is_autotestNoMark as automated run (default: true)
environment_idNoID of the environment the build ran against

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv3.0.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • changedInput schema / properties / code / description
      Previous value: -"Project code (2-10 uppercase letters, numbers, or underscores)"New value: +"Project code, e.g. DEMO"
    • removedInput schema / properties / results / items / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • changedInput schema / properties / results / items / properties / attachments / description
      Previous value: -"Attachment hashes from qase_attachment_upload"New value: +"Hashes from qase_attachment_upload"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "results_recorded": {
-      "description": "Number of results recorded",
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "run_id": {
-      "description": "Created run ID",
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "run_status": {
-      "enum": [
-        "active",
-        "complete",
-        "complete_failed"
-      ],
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "run_id",
-    "run_status",
-    "results_recorded"
-  ],
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv2.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / environment_id / description
      Added value: +"ID of the environment the build ran against"
  3. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.4.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / results / description
      Previous value: -"Test results to record"New value: +"Test results to record, 1 to 2000 per call"
    • addedInput schema / properties / results / maxItems
      Added value: +2000
  4. Changed1 schema field changedv2.2.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / results / items / properties / attachments / description
      Added value: +"Attachment hashes from qase_attachment_upload"
  5. Addedv2.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and does well: it discloses the composite nature (three API operations behind one call), the automatic batch splitting over 200, the 2000 ceiling, and an approximate latency. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Four front-loaded sentences with zero waste: the operation, the routing alternative, the batching constraint, and the cost. Each sentence adds a distinct piece of decision-relevant information.

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?

For a six-parameter composite tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the alternative, batching limits, and cost. The main omission is what the call returns (e.g., run id) and permission requirements, but these are minor against an otherwise complete definition.

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 100%, so fields like case_id, status enum, complete, and is_autotest are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that each result needs a numeric case_id and a status, adding no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 precise compound verb+resource: creates a run, records every result, and completes it. It explicitly names the sibling it is not (qase_result_record) and the condition that selects it, so an agent can distinguish it from qase_run_upsert and qase_result_record without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule ('whole finished CI run in one call') and a named alternative with the distinguishing condition ('when the run already exists and results arrive in stages, use qase_result_record'). Nothing is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools