stories_get_manyFetch multiple stories by UUID in one call. Duplicate IDs are deduplicated; unknown UUIDs are skipped.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | No | Story UUIDs. | |
| project_id | Yes | Project UUID (database id). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stories | Yes | Stories for the project. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / stories / items / properties / human_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Story human label (e.g. S-3), for creation and display.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / stories / items / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "story_id",
- "project_id",
- "content",
- "requirement_ids",
- "stakeholder_ids",
- "lifecycle_rollup"
-]New value: +[
+ "story_id",
+ "human_id",
+ "project_id",
+ "content",
+ "requirement_ids",
+ "stakeholder_ids",
+ "lifecycle_rollup"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-open-world), and the description adds genuine edge-case behavior: duplicate IDs are deduplicated and unknown UUIDs are silently skipped. This tells the agent to expect partial results rather than an error, which is valuable context beyond 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two behavioral caveats. No filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the annotations carry the safety profile. Combined with the dedup/skip behavior, the definition is nearly complete; only the sibling routing (when to use this vs stories_get/list) is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (ids array and project_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or batching detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (stories) with batch scope ('multiple ... in one call'), which implicitly separates it from the singular stories_get and the unfiltered stories_list. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'In one call' implies the batching use case (avoid N single fetches), but the description never states when to prefer this over stories_get or stories_list. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.