FeatureOS

Create feature request

create_feature_request

Create a new feature request post in the organization.

Pass on_behalf_email to create the post as that user instead of as yourself. on_behalf_name is optional and ignored unless on_behalf_email is also set.

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": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "bucket_id": "<bucket_id>"
    },
    "name": "create_feature_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes	Title of the post (also used to generate the slug).
`tag_ids`	No	List of tag IDs to attach. Pass as a JSON array of integers, e.g. [44891, 44595]. Do NOT pass a quoted string. Use list_tags to find IDs.
`state_id`	No	Custom status ID to set on the post.
`bucket_id`	Yes	ID of the board (bucket) to post into. Use list_buckets to find IDs.
`description`	No	Body of the post. Accepts HTML.
`allow_private`	No	Set to True when bucket_id refers to a private board.
`custom_fields`	No	Custom field values keyed by field slug, e.g. {"priority": "High", "spec": "<file_url>"}. For a file field, pass the file_url returned by create_attachment_upload_url after the upload succeeds. Not supported together with on_behalf_email.
`jira_issue_id`	No	Jira issue ID to link to the post.
`on_behalf_name`	No	Display name for the on-behalf submitter. Only used when on_behalf_email is set. If omitted, the API derives a name from the email.
`on_behalf_email`	No	Email of the user to post on behalf of. When set, the post is created as that user (POST /feature_requests/post_on_behalf) instead of as the authenticated user.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`feature_request`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare it is a non-destructive, open-world write. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: that the caller can impersonate another submitter by setting on_behalf_email, which changes the underlying endpoint and the post's authorship, plus the conditional dependency of on_behalf_name. It stops short of covering permission requirements or failure modes.

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?

Two short, front-loaded paragraphs with no filler; the core action comes first and the conditional parameter behavior follows. The on-behalf guidance duplicates schema text, keeping it just short of maximal efficiency.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't document return values, and the input schema carries all parameter detail. The description is adequate for a ten-parameter creation tool, though it could note that bucket_id must reference a writable board and could flag the custom_fields restriction it leaves entirely to the schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all ten parameters, including the on_behalf pair and the custom_fields/on_behalf_email incompatibility. The description's explanation of on_behalf_email meaningfully restates rather than extends the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new feature request post in the organization.' That clearly separates it from siblings such as create_changelog or create_article. It doesn't explicitly contrast with update_feature_request or list_feature_requests, but the create action is unambiguous.

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?

The second paragraph gives a concrete usage rule for the on-behalf workflow (pass on_behalf_email to post as another user; on_behalf_name is ignored unless the email is set). Beyond that, there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or on prerequisites like locating bucket_id or tag IDs, which the schema mentions but the description does not reinforce.

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.