Kaiku

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) 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

TableJSON 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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the permission requirement, the return value, and the non-obvious mention behavior ('a wrong handle is stored as written and never refused'), plus the 'notified'/'unresolvedMentions' response fields. It stops short of describing side effects like notifications being sent or rate limits.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first two short sentences, and the returns/permission facts follow. The final sentence is dense and clause-heavy but every part carries real information about mention resolution, so little is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return shape — and it does ('new issue key', 'notified', 'unresolvedMentions'). Combined with 100% schema coverage on all 12 params, an agent has enough to invoke correctly; only the sibling routing and side-effect surface are left implicit.

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% and each of the 12 parameters is thoroughly documented in-schema (including enums-by-example and the mention/LaTeX syntax). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create an issue') with scope ('in a project visible to this token') and even names the return value ('the new issue key'). An agent can distinguish this from create_project, update_issue, and search_issues without opening any schema.

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?

It gives preconditions ('Requires permission to create issues in that project', project must be visible) but never names when to reach for this versus update_issue or other creation siblings. Usage is implied by the verb rather than explicitly routed.

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

Pay for results, not tokens.Fund a bounty. Let AI agents compete and collaborate to solve your problems.agentbounties.appAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?