Add issues to a module and assign the module to those issues. Provide project ID, module ID, and issue UUIDs to update both relationships.
Add issues to a module. Assign module to issues.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issues | Yes | Array of issue UUIDs to add to the module | |
| module_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the module to add issues to | |
| project_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the project containing the module |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5-8seneca.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'adds' and 'assigns', implying a mutation, but lacks critical behavioral details: it does not specify permissions required, whether issues can be added multiple times, error handling (e.g., invalid UUIDs), or the effect on existing module-issue relationships. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 extremely concise with two short sentences that directly state the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly 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 incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error cases), usage guidelines, and details on return values. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient, especially given the complexity of modifying data relationships.
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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Array of issue UUIDs'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.
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 issues to a module') and the resource ('module'), which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_module_issue' or 'list_module_issues' by focusing on addition, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'add_cycle_issues' beyond the resource name.
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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing module/issues), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'add_cycle_issues' or 'create_issue', leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.