Skip to main content
Glama
uarlouski

TestRail MCP Server

by uarlouski
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

add_case

Create a new test case in TestRail using a section ID and title. Optionally set custom fields with valid system names from get_case_fields.

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

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, signaling a non-destructive write operation. The description adds the prerequisite about field names but doesn't describe side effects, success/failure behavior, or response format. The schema's fields parameter description provides additional behavioral details (e.g., server merges entries, unknown fields error), but that is part of the schema, not the description text.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides a critical prerequisite. It is front-loaded, concise, and every word earns its place. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and the annotations already cover safety traits, the description plus schema fully cover what an agent needs: purpose, required parameters, and a prerequisite. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe what the response looks like (e.g., the created case object), but for a create operation this is often implicit. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a well-scoped tool.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema descriptions for each parameter are detailed, especially for 'fields' with examples and error conditions. The description text adds nothing beyond the schema; it only mentions the prerequisite of get_case_fields. Since the schema carries the semantic weight, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a new test case in TestRail'), making the purpose unambiguous. It also implicitly distinguishes from update_case by using 'create' and mentions a prerequisite tied to get_case_fields, which adds context.

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?

The description explicitly notes that the operation requires knowing valid field names from get_case_fields, giving a clear prerequisite. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like update_case, but the create vs. update distinction is obvious from the name. Overall, it gives useful context for when 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