FeatureOS

Assign feature request

assign_feature_request

Assign a team member to a feature request by their email address.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "feature_request_id": "<feature_request_id>",
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "assign_feature_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	Yes	The email address of the team member to assign to the feature request.
`feature_request_id`	Yes	The ID of the feature request to assign.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`feature_request`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens if the email is unknown, whether it replaces an existing assignee or adds a second one, what permissions are required, or whether the call is idempotent. For a mutation tool this is a real gap.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the key mechanism (email lookup) front-loaded. It is not padded, though the brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral detail noted above.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema and annotations cover the return shape and safety profile, and the schema fully documents both parameters, so the core is complete. Still missing is what an agent most needs for a mutation: overwrite semantics for an existing assignee and behavior on an unrecognized email.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description only echoes that the team member is identified by email, which adds no meaning beyond the schema's 'email address of the team member to assign' description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (assign), the resource (a team member to a feature request) and even the identifying mechanism (by email address). This clearly distinguishes it from unassign_feature_request and the tag-related siblings, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this versus unassign_feature_request or update_feature_request, and no prerequisites are stated — for example whether the email must belong to an already-invited team member. The agent must infer all usage context from the name.

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

All FeatureOS tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.