Skip to main content
Glama
uarlouski

TestRail MCP Server

by uarlouski
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

add_case

Create a new TestRail test case within a specified section, using valid field names from get_case_fields so requests succeed on the first try.

Instructions

Create a new test case in TestRail. The create operation requires knowing valid field names that are returned by get_case_fields tool.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesThe title of the test case
fieldsNo A flat key-value map of case fields. The server merges all entries directly into the root of the TestRail API request body — there is no nested "fields" key in the API call. Must use system_name values from get_case_fields. Example: {"priority_id": 2, "template_id": 1, "labels": [1, 2]} Call get_case_fields with project_id first if field names are not already known. Using an unknown field name (e.g. 'label_ids') will result in an error.
section_idYesThe ID of the section where the case should be created. Use query_section (action: "many") to find available sections

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / section_id / description
      Previous value: -"The ID of the section where the case should be created. Use get_sections to find available sections"New value: +"The ID of the section where the case should be created. Use query_section (action: \"many\") to find available sections"
  2. Addedv2.2.0
  3. Removedv2.1.0
  4. Addedv2.0.0
  5. Removedv1.9.2
  6. First observedv1.9.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the dependency on get_case_fields and the failure mode for unknown field names, but does not describe permissions, validation behavior, or what is returned.

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?

Two tight sentences; the core create action is front-loaded and the prerequisite follows. No wasted text, though the second sentence could be folded into the first without loss.

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 mutation tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description plus schema is largely complete. The main omission is any note about what happens on success (created ID) or overlapping fields.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds only the field-name provenance requirement, which the schema's 'fields' description already explains in detail. No additional parameter meaning beyond the structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new test case in TestRail'), clearly distinct from update_case/get_case siblings by the verb. It does not explicitly name the sibling it is not, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Names a concrete prerequisite and the tool that satisfies it: field names must come from get_case_fields, and unknown field names will error. This gives clear context for correct invocation, though it does not compare against update_case or otherwise state when-not to use this tool.

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