Skip to main content
Glama
qase-tms

Qase MCP Server

Official
by qase-tms

qase_defect_upsert

Create or update a tracked testing defect in Qase. New defects require title, actual_result, and severity; include an existing id to update or resolve it.

Instructions

Create or update a defect — a tracked problem found by testing. Without id it creates, with id it updates. Creating one requires title, actual_result and severity; the API rejects a defect missing any of the three. Severity is given as a label ("blocker", "critical", "major", "normal", "minor", "trivial") and the server maps it to the workspace's numeric ID, custom options included. Status is a label too ("open", "in_progress", "resolved", "invalid") and passes through as written; setting it to "resolved" on an existing defect goes through the dedicated resolve endpoint. When the defect comes from a specific test failure, use qase_triage_defect instead. The API has no way to attach runs or results to a defect, so reference the failing results in the text rather than expecting a link. Find existing defects with qql_search before filing a duplicate. Cost: one API call, about 0.5s, plus a cached lookup of the severity options.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoDefect ID — if provided, updates; if omitted, creates
codeYesProject code (2-10 uppercase letters, numbers, or underscores)
tagsNo
titleYesDefect title
statusNoSet to "resolved" to resolve the defect
severityNo
attachmentsNoAttachment hashes from qase_attachment_upload
custom_fieldNo
actual_resultNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.2.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / attachments / description
      Added value: +"Attachment hashes from qase_attachment_upload"
  2. Addedv2.0.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false), the description discloses create/update branching, mandatory-field rejection, server-side severity label mapping, the dedicated resolve endpoint for status='resolved', and the lack of run/result attachment. No statement contradicts the annotations.

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 well front-loaded and every major sentence adds operational value, but the final cost sentence repeats 'about 0.5s' three times, introducing unnecessary redundancy. Apart from that, the structure is clear and scannable.

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 9-parameter upsert with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the critical invocation decisions: create vs update, required fields, label handling, resolve behavior, alternatives, duplicate avoidance, and cost. It does not describe return values or custom_field semantics, but those gaps do not block correct selection and invocation.

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?

With schema coverage at 56%, the description compensates by explaining the functional meaning of id, title/actual_result/severity requirements, and the enum labels for severity and status. It also clarifies how severity labels map to workspace IDs, which the schema does not convey.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create or update a defect') and explains the create/update distinction by id, making the operation unambiguous. It also names the nearby sibling qase_triage_defect, so the agent can tell this tool apart from the test-failure-specific alternative.

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?

It explicitly says to use qase_triage_defect when the defect stems from a specific test failure, and instructs the agent to search with qql_search before filing duplicates. It also warns that runs/results cannot be attached to a defect, outlining when not to expect linking behavior.

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

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/qase-tms/qase-mcp-server'

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