Kaiku

Create issue

create_issue

Create an issue in a project visible to this token. Returns the new issue key. Requires permission to create issues in that project. Answers with 'notified' (who this actually reaches: the people mentioned, and for an assignment the new assignee as 'assignee' and the one taken off as 'unassigned' in 'as' — never yourself) and 'unresolvedMentions' (what looked like a mention and reached nobody, each with a reason) — a wrong handle is stored as written and never refused, so that list is the only sign it did not land.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	No	Issue type name, e.g. 'Task', 'Bug', 'Story', 'Epic'. Defaults to 'Task'.
`order`	No	Its place among its parent's children: 1, 2, 3… — the order they are to be done in. Children with a place come first, in it; the rest after, by number. Filing a template's sub-tasks, pass 1, 2, 3… in turn.
`labels`	No	Labels to set, space or comma separated.
`dueDate`	No	The day this is due, as YYYY-MM-DD. A calendar day, not a timestamp — do not send a time or a zone.
`summary`	Yes	Issue summary (title).
`assignee`	No	Assignee username or email. Omit to leave unassigned.
`priority`	No	Priority name, e.g. 'High'.
`teamRole`	No	The project's team role this issue is for, by name, e.g. 'Звуковик' — one of the roles its administrators keep. With no assignee given, the issue goes to the person who has held that role longest.
`parentKey`	No	Parent issue key, to create this as a child/sub-task.
`projectKey`	Yes	Project key, e.g. 'UK'.
`description`	No	Issue description. Markdown is kept as written, and carries $…$ / $$…$$ LaTeX formulas and [~username] mentions (the username, which list_users hands you ready-made — never the display name).
`fixVersions`	No	The versions of the project this goes out in, by name, comma-separated: '2.4.0' or '2.4.0, 2.4.1' — the names list_versions gives. A name the project does not have refuses the filing and lists the ones it has.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 5, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / fixVersions

Added value: +{
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "The versions of the project this goes out in, by name, comma-separated: '2.4.0' or '2.4.0, 2.4.1' — the names list_versions gives. A name the project does not have refuses the filing and lists the ones it has.",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

Changed1 schema field changedSep 28, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / order

Added value: +{
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Its place among its parent's children: 1, 2, 3… — the order they are to be done in. Children with a place come first, in it; the rest after, by number. Filing a template's sub-tasks, pass 1, 2, 3… in turn.",
+  "type": [
+    "integer",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

Changed1 schema field changedSep 28, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / teamRole

Added value: +{
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "The project's team role this issue is for, by name, e.g. 'Звуковик' — one of the roles its administrators keep. With no assignee given, the issue goes to the person who has held that role longest.",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

First observedSep 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: the permission requirement, the returned issue key, the meaning of 'notified' and 'unresolvedMentions', and the fact that malformed mention handles are silently stored rather than refused. That last detail is especially valuable because it warns the agent that unresolvedMentions is the only signal a mention did not land.

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 core action and return value, then moves into permission and notification details. The 'notified' explanation is dense and somewhat convoluted, but it carries genuinely important behavioral information rather than filler.

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 12-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description does well: it explains the return key, notification side effects, and permission requirements while the schema handles parameter details. It does not cover failure modes such as invalid project keys or issue type mismatches, which would strengthen completeness.

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 12 parameters thoroughly. The description adds useful cross-cutting context about mentions and notification behavior, but it does not add per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 an issue in a project visible to this token. It also states the immediate return (the new issue key), so the agent knows exactly what action is being taken and what to expect, even without naming siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context for when this tool applies: creating an issue in a project visible to the token, with the permission requirement called out. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as update_issue or find_issues, but the create action is sufficiently distinct that the guidance is practically clear.

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

All Kaiku tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Context All Your Agents Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and hold it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?