QASE MCP Server

update_plan

Modify an existing test plan in QASE by updating its code, title, description, or associated test cases to maintain accurate testing documentation.

Instructions

Update an existing test plan

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "code": "<code>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "update_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes
`id`	Yes
`title`	No
`description`	No
`cases`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedMay 18, 2025

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's an update operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permission requirements, whether updates are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. 'Update' implies mutation, but lacks critical details for safe usage.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the minimal information it conveys.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or provide enough context for reliable use. The gap between complexity and documentation is significant.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'code', 'id', 'title', 'description', or 'cases' represent, their formats, or how they affect the update. With 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is inadequate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Update an existing test plan' clearly states the action (update) and resource (test plan), but it's generic and doesn't differentiate from sibling update tools like update_case or update_suite. It specifies 'existing' which distinguishes from create_plan, but lacks detail about what aspects can be updated.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies it's for modifying existing plans, but doesn't mention prerequisites, when to choose create_plan instead, or how it relates to other update tools. The context is minimal.

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