Skip to main content
Glama
qase-tms

Qase MCP Server

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

Create or update defect

qase_defect_upsert

Create or update Qase defects: include an ID to update an existing defect, or omit it and supply title, actual result, and severity to create one.

Instructions

Create or update a defect: with id it updates, without it creates, and then title, actual_result and severity are required. Severity and status are labels ("blocker", "open"…), mapped for you. For a defect born from a specific test failure use qase_triage_defect; search with qql_search before filing a duplicate. Cost: one API call, about 0.5s.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoDefect ID — if provided, updates; if omitted, creates
codeYesProject code, e.g. DEMO
tagsNoTag names, e.g. ["regression", "payments"]
titleYesDefect title
statusNoSet to "resolved" to resolve the defect
severityNoHow bad the defect is — required when creating a defect
attachmentsNoHashes from qase_attachment_upload
custom_fieldNoCustom fields by ID, e.g. { "12": "value" }
actual_resultNoWhat actually happened — required when creating a defect

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv3.0.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • changedInput schema / properties / attachments / description
      Previous value: -"Attachment hashes from qase_attachment_upload"New value: +"Hashes from qase_attachment_upload"
    • changedInput schema / properties / code / description
      Previous value: -"Project code (2-10 uppercase letters, numbers, or underscores)"New value: +"Project code, e.g. DEMO"
    • changedInput schema / properties / custom_field / description
      Previous value: -"Custom field values keyed by field ID, e.g. { \"12\": \"value\" }"New value: +"Custom fields by ID, e.g. { \"12\": \"value\" }"
    • addedInput schema / properties / custom_field / propertyNames
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed4 schema fields changedv2.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / actual_result / description
      Added value: +"What actually happened — required when creating a defect"
    • addedInput schema / properties / custom_field / description
      Added value: +"Custom field values keyed by field ID, e.g. { \"12\": \"value\" }"
    • addedInput schema / properties / severity / description
      Added value: +"How bad the defect is — required when creating a defect"
    • addedInput schema / properties / tags / description
      Added value: +"Tag names, e.g. [\"regression\", \"payments\"]"
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv2.2.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / attachments / description
      Added value: +"Attachment hashes from qase_attachment_upload"
  4. Addedv2.0.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Only `destructiveHint: false` is annotated, so the description carries most of the burden and it does so well: it explains the create-vs-update switch, that severity/status labels are normalized for the caller, and gives a cost estimate (one API call, ~0.5s). It stops short of stating auth requirements or how partial updates merge with existing fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the create/update branch rule, then alternatives, then cost. Dense and mostly waste-free; the trailing latency note is mildly expendable but useful for planning.

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?

Covers the 9-parameter, nested-object surface adequately: mode selection, conditional required fields, label normalization, sibling routing, and cost. With no output schema, it could say more about the returned defect identifier, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely new conditional semantics: it says title, actual_result and severity are required when creating, which the schema's static `required` list ([code, title]) does not capture. The label-mapping note for severity/status is also additive.

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 pair and resource (create or update a defect) and immediately disambiguates the two modes via the `id` parameter. It also names the sibling it is not (qase_triage_defect) and the search tool to use, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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 explicit routing rules: use qase_triage_defect when the defect originates from a specific test failure, and search with qql_search before filing a duplicate. The when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else conditions are both stated directly.

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