Add multiple issue UUIDs to a specific project cycle by providing project ID, cycle ID, and issue list. Organize work items into cycles for tracking.
Add issues to a cycle
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issues | Yes | Array of issue UUIDs to add to the cycle | |
| cycle_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the cycle to add issues to | |
| project_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the project containing the cycle |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5-8seneca.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Add issues to a cycle' implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, whether this is idempotent, what happens if issues already exist in the cycle, error conditions, or response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and understandable without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after adding issues, potential side effects, error handling, or relationship to sibling tools. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.
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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (cycle_id, issues array, project_id). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Add') and resource ('issues to a cycle'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'add_module_issues' or 'transfer_cycle_issues', but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_module_issues' or 'transfer_cycle_issues'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for usage, leaving the agent with minimal contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.