Skip to main content
Glama
vilaabo

zephyr-scale-mcp

by vilaabo

create_test_case

Creates a test case in Zephyr Scale, returning its key and URL. Accepts required name and optional folder, status, priority, owner, test script, and parameters.

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 the full Gherkin document (stored verbatim).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesTest case name
ownerNoOwner. Jira *user key* (e.g. 'JIRAUSER10000'), NOT a username or e-mail — resolve it with find_jira_user.
folderNoFull folder path from the root starting with "/", e.g. "/Regression/Payments". The folder MUST already exist (create it with create_folder).
labelsNoLabels; the API replaces spaces with underscores
statusNoTest case status. Defaults: 'Draft', 'Approved', 'Deprecated' — case-sensitive; instances may define custom ones.
priorityNoPriority. Defaults: 'High', 'Normal', 'Low' — case-sensitive; instances may define custom ones.
componentNoName of a Jira component of the project
objectiveNoObjective (HTML allowed)
issueLinksNoJira issue keys to link, e.g. ["PROJ-123"]
parametersNoTest case parameters: { variables: [{name, type: FREE_TEXT | DATA_SET, dataSet?}], entries: [{<variable>: <value>}] }
projectKeyNoJira project key; defaults to ZEPHYR_DEFAULT_PROJECT_KEY
testScriptNoTest script. STEP_BY_STEP: {type, steps: [{description?, testData?, expectedResult?, testCaseKey?}]}; PLAIN_TEXT/BDD: {type, text}.
customFieldsNoCustom field values keyed by field name
preconditionNoPrecondition (HTML allowed)
estimatedTimeNoEstimated duration in milliseconds
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses many behavioral traits: API endpoint, return format, folder existence requirement, case-sensitivity, default values, owner format, estimatedTime unit, and testScript formats including 'Call to Test'. It does not mention rate limits, auth, or idempotency, but covers the core behaviors comprehensively.

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 lengthy but well-organized with a clear opening, then a bullet-like list of constraints and parameter details. Every sentence adds value given the tool's complexity (15 parameters, nested objects). Minor redundancy (e.g., repeating case-sensitivity for status and priority) could be tightened but does not detract significantly.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the return format (key, url) and key pattern. It covers all major behavioral aspects: constraints, defaults, parameter relationships, and script formats. For a complex creation tool, this is highly complete, leaving little ambiguity for an AI agent.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Input schema has 100% description coverage, but the description adds substantial additional meaning: explains owner must be a Jira user key (not username), folder must exist, status/priority defaults and case-sensitivity, estimatedTime in milliseconds, and detailed testScript structure with step composition and 'Call to Test' feature. This goes well beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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?

Clearly states 'Create a Zephyr Scale test case (POST /testcase)' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like create_test_cases_bulk by implying single-case creation. The return format with key example further clarifies the tool's output.

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?

Provides important constraints (folder must exist, owner must be Jira user key, status/priority case-sensitivity) and prerequisite actions (use create_folder, find_jira_user). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. the bulk creation alternative (create_test_cases_bulk) or when not to use it (e.g., for updating).

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/vilaabo/zephyr-scale-mcp'

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