Skip to main content
Glama
vilaabo

zephyr-scale-mcp

by vilaabo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create_test_plan

Define a new test plan in Zephyr Scale by providing a required name and optional parameters such as owner, folder, status, labels, objective, and linked issues.

Instructions

Create a Zephyr Scale test plan (POST /testplan). Returns { key } with a key like PROJ-P123 (no UI url — it cannot be built reliably for test plans). Constraints: the folder, if given, MUST be an existing folder of type TEST_PLAN — the API never creates folders (use create_folder with type TEST_PLAN first); status is a case-sensitive internal name (defaults 'Draft'/'Approved'/'Deprecated'; instances may define custom ones); owner is a Jira user key like JIRAUSER10000 (resolve with find_jira_user).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesTest plan name
ownerNoOwner. Jira *user key* (e.g. 'JIRAUSER10000'), NOT a username or e-mail — resolve it with find_jira_user.
folderNoFull TEST_PLAN folder path from the root starting with "/", e.g. "/Releases/2026". The folder MUST already exist — create it first with create_folder using type TEST_PLAN.
labelsNoLabels; the API replaces spaces with underscores
statusNoTest plan status. Defaults: 'Draft', 'Approved', 'Deprecated' — case-sensitive; instances may define custom ones.
objectiveNoObjective (HTML allowed)
issueLinksNoJira issue keys to link, e.g. ["PROJ-123"]
projectKeyNoJira project key; defaults to ZEPHYR_DEFAULT_PROJECT_KEY
customFieldsNoCustom field values keyed by field name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.2
  2. Removed
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
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 the return format ({ key }), notes that no UI URL can be built, and lists constraints (folder existence, status case-sensitivity). However, it does not mention idempotency, rate limits, or potential side effects beyond resource creation.

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 front-loaded with the main action and return, then constraints. It is informative but slightly verbose with multiple parenthetical asides. Every sentence adds value, though some could be tightened.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return format. It covers creation constraints, parameter special cases, and provides necessary context for a complex creation tool with 9 parameters and nested objects.

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%, but the description adds value beyond the schema: it clarifies that folder MUST exist (schema only says 'full path'), status is case-sensitive (schema only lists defaults), and owner must be a resolved Jira user key (schema hints but description directs to find_jira_user).

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 clearly states the action 'Create a Zephyr Scale test plan' and specifies the HTTP method (POST /testplan). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'create_folder' and 'find_jira_user' by referencing them in constraints.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit usage context: folder must already exist (ties to create_folder), status is case-sensitive and has defaults, owner is a Jira user key (ties to find_jira_user). It tells when to use alternatives (create_folder first) and includes constraints.

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