Qase MCP Server

Official

by qase-tms

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions(1)Admin

TypeScript

Remote

Search with QQL

qql_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search any Qase entity with QQL queries to filter, sort, aggregate, and fetch multiple records across projects in one API call.

Instructions

Search any entity with Qase Query Language: filtering, cross-project queries, sorting, and aggregation. This is the right tool for every question that is not "give me this one record by ID" — "cases without automation", "results that failed this week", "open blockers across projects" — and the right way to fetch many records at once instead of looping over qase_get. Call qql_help first for the syntax, the fields available per entity, and the enum values; a query naming an unknown attribute is rejected outright. Use qase_get instead when you already know the entity and its ID and want just that one. Cost: one API call. 0.5-0.9s for pages up to 50 records; a page of 100 measured 0.9-2.8s depending on how much each record carries. Prefer one search over N single fetches: the same ten records cost 1.2s here against 5.3s as ten qase_get calls.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum number of results to return (default: 10, max: 100)
`query`	Yes	QQL query expression. Examples: - entity = "case" and project = "DEMO" and status = "Actual" - entity = "defect" and severity = "blocker" and status = "open" - entity = "result" and status = "failed" and ended >= now("-7d") - entity = "run" and milestone ~ "Sprint 12" See QQL documentation for full syntax and examples.
`offset`	No	Number of results to skip for pagination

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`total`	Yes	Total matching entities
`entities`	Yes	Matching entities

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.1Aug 14, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / query / description

Previous value: -"QQL query expression. Examples:\n- entity = \"case\" and project = \"DEMO\" and status = \"Actual\"\n- entity = \"defect\" and severity = \"blocker\" and status = \"open\"\n- entity = \"result\" and status = \"failed\" and created >= now(\"-7d\")\n- entity = \"run\" and milestone ~ \"Sprint 12\"\nSee QQL documentation for full syntax and examples."New value: +"QQL query expression. Examples:\n- entity = \"case\" and project = \"DEMO\" and status = \"Actual\"\n- entity = \"defect\" and severity = \"blocker\" and status = \"open\"\n- entity = \"result\" and status = \"failed\" and ended >= now(\"-7d\")\n- entity = \"run\" and milestone ~ \"Sprint 12\"\nSee QQL documentation for full syntax and examples."

changedInput schema / properties / query / maxLength
```
Previous value: -1000New value: +2000
```

Changed1 schema field changedv2.0.0Jul 29, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "entities": {
+      "description": "Matching entities",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "total": {
+      "description": "Total matching entities",
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "total",
+    "entities"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv1.1.7May 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the lower bar applies and the description earns credit for adding context beyond them: performance characteristics (0.5-0.9s for up to 50 records, 0.9-2.8s for 100), a one-API-call cost, and the rejection behavior for unknown attributes. This is genuinely useful disclosure that annotations do not provide, though it does not describe return structure (covered by the output schema).

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded and the flow is logical, but the tail carries two-and-a-half sentences of benchmark numbers (0.5-0.9s, 0.9-2.8s, 1.2s vs 5.3s) that are excessive for tool selection and repeat the same point twice: 'fetch many records at once instead of looping over qase_get' and later 'Prefer one search over N single fetches'. The cost-comparison redundancy could be trimmed to a single sentence.

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 QQL search tool with cross-project scope, the description is near-complete: it covers when to use it, the error behavior for bad queries, performance expectations, and the prerequisite of qql_help. Return values are covered by the existing output schema, so nothing the agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing. Only the verbosity of the benchmark data keeps this from a 5.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the query parameter already ships with syntax examples, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds the advisory to 'Call qql_help first for the syntax, the fields available per entity, and the enum values,' which is useful query-parameter guidance, but it adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already provides. It sits at baseline.

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 a specific verb-resource-capability statement: 'Search any entity with Qase Query Language: filtering, cross-project queries, sorting, and aggregation.' It then explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling qase_get by enumerating the non-ID questions it covers ('cases without automation', 'results that failed this week'). An agent can tell this tool apart from any sibling without inspecting 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?

It explicitly says when to use it ('the right tool for every question that is not give me this one record by ID'), names the exact alternative ('Use qase_get instead when you already know the entity and its ID'), and instructs calling qql_help first for syntax. Both exclusions and the routing condition are spelled out with concrete examples — 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