zephyr-scale-mcp

create_test_case

Creates a test case in Zephyr Scale and returns its key and URL. Supports step-by-step, plain text, or BDD scripts with parameters, labels, and custom fields.

Instructions

Create a Zephyr Scale test case (POST /testcase). Returns { key, url } with a key like PROJ-T123. Constraints: the folder, if given, MUST already exist — the API never creates folders (use create_folder first); status and priority are case-sensitive internal names (defaults 'Draft'/'Approved'/'Deprecated' and 'High'/'Normal'/'Low'; instances may define custom ones); owner is a Jira user key like JIRAUSER10000 (resolve with find_jira_user); estimatedTime is in milliseconds. testScript formats: STEP_BY_STEP with steps (a step carrying testCaseKey is a 'Call to Test' that inlines another test case), PLAIN_TEXT with text, or BDD with text holding ONLY Gherkin step lines (Given/When/Then/And/But, stored verbatim) — do NOT include 'Feature:'/'Scenario:' headers, the API rejects them with 400 'Invalid BDD Script'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Test case name
`owner`	No	Owner. Jira user key (e.g. 'JIRAUSER10000'), NOT a username or e-mail — resolve it with find_jira_user.
`folder`	No	Full folder path from the root starting with "/", e.g. "/Regression/Payments". The folder MUST already exist (create it with create_folder).
`labels`	No	Labels; the API replaces spaces with underscores
`status`	No	Test case status. Defaults: 'Draft', 'Approved', 'Deprecated' — case-sensitive; instances may define custom ones.
`priority`	No	Priority. Defaults: 'High', 'Normal', 'Low' — case-sensitive; instances may define custom ones.
`component`	No	Name of a Jira component of the project
`objective`	No	Objective (HTML allowed)
`issueLinks`	No	Jira issue keys to link, e.g. ["PROJ-123"]
`parameters`	No	Test case parameters: { variables: [{name, type: FREE_TEXT \| DATA_SET, dataSet?}], entries: [{<variable>: <value>}] }
`projectKey`	No	Jira project key; defaults to ZEPHYR_DEFAULT_PROJECT_KEY
`testScript`	No	Test script. STEP_BY_STEP: {type, steps: [{description?, testData?, expectedResult?, testCaseKey?}]}; PLAIN_TEXT/BDD: {type, text}.
`customFields`	No	Custom field values keyed by field name
`precondition`	No	Precondition (HTML allowed)
`estimatedTime`	No	Estimated duration in milliseconds

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedJul 17, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / testScript / properties / text / description

Previous value: -"Script body for PLAIN_TEXT, or the full Gherkin document for BDD"New value: +"Script body for PLAIN_TEXT, or the Gherkin scenario body for BDD: ONLY Given/When/Then/And/But step lines — Server/DC rejects texts wrapped in \"Feature:\"/\"Scenario:\" headers with 400 \"Invalid BDD Script\" (a BDD test case IS a single scenario; the feature wrapper is generated on export)."

First observedv0.1.0Jul 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: return value format, folder creation avoidance, case sensitivity of status/priority, owner key format, estimatedTime unit, and API rejection of invalid BDD scripts. This is comprehensive.

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?

The description is a single long paragraph but front-loaded with purpose. It packs much necessary detail without excessive verbosity. Some redundancy with schema descriptions could be trimmed, but overall well-structured.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the complexity (15 params, nested objects) and no output schema, the description covers return values, constraints, error responses, and parameter specifics. It addresses all likely questions an agent might have.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds extra clarity on testScript formats (e.g., 'Call to Test', BDD restrictions) and relationships between parameters like folder and owner. This adds moderate value beyond the schema.

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 begins with 'Create a Zephyr Scale test case' specifying the verb and resource, and includes the HTTP method and return format. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like clone_test_case, update_test_case, and create_folder by referencing them.

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 provides explicit constraints and prerequisites: folder must exist (use create_folder), owner must be a Jira user key (resolve with find_jira_user), and warns against incorrect BDD format. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use this tool or list alternatives, the context is clear.

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

create_test_case

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools