Skip to main content
Glama

test_cases_update

Update existing test cases in meloQA. Archived test cases are read-only and cannot be modified. Use this endpoint to modify fields like name, type, description, steps, and custom fields.

Instructions

Update test case

Tag: Test Cases

Archived test cases (statusId === ARCHIVED) are read-only and cannot be updated through this endpoint.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesTest Case ID
nameNo
typeNo
orderNo
stepsNoTest case steps. The required shape depends on the test case type — list the available types and their IDs via `GET /v1/test-case-types` and pass the chosen `id` as `type` in the body. The four built-in types behave as follows: - **BDD**: at least 1 step required. Each step has `description` (required), `gherkinKeyword` (optional, defaults to `given`), and `data` (optional). `expectedResult` on the step is rejected — the BDD outcome is expressed by the `then` keyword. - **EXPECTED_RESULT_PER_STEP**: at least 1 step required. Each step has `description` and `expectedResult` (both required); `data` is optional. `gherkinKeyword` is rejected. - **GENERAL_EXEPECTED_RESULT**: steps are optional. When provided, each step has `description` (required) and `data` (optional). `expectedResult` on the test case (top-level) is required. - **NO_STEP**: steps are rejected. `expectedResult` on the test case is required. On `POST` the steps are created with the new test case. On `PATCH` sending `steps` replaces the existing list (soft-deletes old steps and creates new ones). Omit `steps` from the body to leave them untouched.
folderIdNo
scenarioNo
statusIdNo
automatedNoEstado de automatização exibido na UI. Se omitido, é derivado de `automation` (AUTOMATED→YES, senão NO).
automationNo
bddRawTextNo
descriptionNo
customFieldsNoValues for the project's custom fields. Discover the available fields and their `id`s via `GET /v1/projects/{projectId}/test-case-custom-fields`. Each item targets one custom field by `projectCustomFieldId`. Send **`value`** for free-form fields (text, number, …) or **`selectId`** for select-type fields (must reference one of `selects[].id` returned by the listing endpoint). Exactly one of `value`/`selectId` must be provided per item. On `POST` the items create the values for the new test case. On `PATCH` each item is upserted by `(testCaseId, projectCustomFieldId)`: existing values are replaced, missing fields are created, and fields not mentioned in the array are left untouched. **Required fields rule:** every project custom field with `isRequired: true` and `isEnabled: true` must end up with a value. On `POST` they must be present in this array; on `PATCH` they must be either present here or already filled on the test case (otherwise the request is rejected with 400). **Disabled fields:** entries that target a custom field with `isEnabled: false` are silently ignored — the field is no longer in use, so the value is neither persisted nor counted toward the required-field rule.
expectedResultNo
preRequirementsNo
specificationTimeNo
automatizationTimeNo
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description only mentions the archived read-only constraint. It does not disclose other behaviors like partial updates, error handling, permission requirements, or side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with 17 parameters.

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 description is short and to the point, but the 'Tag: Test Cases' line is unnecessary and adds noise. While concise, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given 17 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description only addresses one edge case (archived test cases). It fails to provide essential context for invocation, such as typical use cases, return values, or error scenarios.

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 only 24%, yet the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the archived constraint. It does not clarify any parameters or their relationships, leaving the agent with minimal guidance.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description 'Update test case' clearly specifies the action and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like test_cases_create, test_cases_delete, or test_cases_unarchive, though the name is self-explanatory.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description states that archived test cases cannot be updated, providing a when-not-to-use condition. But it lacks guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., create for new cases, unarchive for reactivating).

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/swl-informatica/meloQA-MCP'

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