Skip to main content
Glama
qase-tms

Qase MCP Server

Official
by qase-tms

qase_triage_defect

Create a defect from a test failure using required title, actual_result, and severity. Put observed failure context in actual_result, and group identical failures into one defect per distinct cause.

Instructions

Create a defect from a test failure, with the failure context written into it. Requires title, actual_result and severity — the API rejects a defect missing any of the three. Note: the API offers no way to attach existing runs or results to a defect. The runs and results seen on a defect in the UI are populated by the test runner when it reports a result as a defect, so there is nothing to pass here for that — reference the failing results inside actual_result instead, and do not expect a link to appear. For a defect unrelated to a test failure use qase_defect_upsert. Cost: one API call, about 0.5s. Triaging a whole run means one call per defect, so cluster identical failures and file one defect per distinct cause rather than one per failed test.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesProject code (2-10 uppercase letters, numbers, or underscores)
tagsNo
titleYesDefect title
severityYesRequired by the API
attachmentsNoAttachment hashes from qase_attachment_upload
descriptionNo
custom_fieldNo
actual_resultYesObserved behavior. Required by the API

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
defectNoFull defect entity
defect_idYesCreated defect ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.2.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / attachments / description
      Added value: +"Attachment hashes from qase_attachment_upload"
  2. Changed7 schema fields changedv2.1.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / actual_result / description
      Previous value: -"Observed behavior"New value: +"Observed behavior. Required by the API"
    • removedInput schema / properties / failed_result_ids
      Removed value: -{
      -  "description": "Result hashes to link to this defect (from the run)",
      -  "items": {
      -    "type": "string"
      -  },
      -  "type": "array"
      -}
    • removedInput schema / properties / run_id
      Removed value: -{
      -  "description": "Run containing the failed results",
      -  "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
      -  "type": "integer"
      -}
    • addedInput schema / properties / severity / description
      Added value: +"Required by the API"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
      -  "code",
      -  "title"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "code",
      +  "title",
      +  "severity",
      +  "actual_result"
      +]
    • removedOutput schema / properties / linked_results
      Removed value: -{
      -  "description": "Number of linked result hashes",
      -  "type": "integer"
      -}
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
      -  "defect_id",
      -  "linked_results"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "defect_id"
      +]
  3. Addedv2.0.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing API rejection behavior for missing fields, the inability to attach existing runs/results, the lack of a link in the UI, cost/latency, and per-defect call behavior. It does not contradict the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations.

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?

Every sentence carries operational information: purpose, requirements, API limitation, alternative tool, latency, and batching guidance. It is dense but not bloated, and the most important facts are front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is complete for an agent deciding whether and how to call this tool: it explains purpose, required fields, API limitations, expected behavior, cost, and the right alternative. With an output schema present, describing return values is unnecessary.

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?

The description adds meaningful parameter guidance: title, actual_result, and severity are required by the API, and failing results should be referenced inside actual_result. Schema coverage is 63%, so the description partially compensates, though optional params like tags, description, and custom_field remain unexplained.

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?

The description opens with 'Create a defect from a test failure,' giving a specific verb, resource, and trigger context. It also explicitly names qase_defect_upsert as the alternative for non-failure defects, making sibling differentiation clear.

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?

It states exactly when to use this tool (test failures) and when not to (unrelated defects, use qase_defect_upsert). It also provides operational guidance: cluster identical failures, file one defect per distinct cause, and expect one API call per defect.

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

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/qase-tms/qase-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server