Flow Boards MCP Server

create_ticket

Create a new ticket in a flow by providing the ticket name, flow, and ticket type. Automatically resolves IDs to simplify ticket creation.

Instructions

Create a new ticket in a flow. Accepts flow name and ticket type name — resolves IDs automatically.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "flow": "<flow>",
      "ticketType": "<ticketType>"
    },
    "name": "create_ticket"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`bin`	No	Specific bin name or ID (overrides flow default)
`flow`	Yes	Flow name or ID to place the ticket in (uses first/backlog bin)
`name`	Yes	Ticket name
`parentId`	No	Parent ticket ID to nest this ticket inside (mutually exclusive with bin/flow)
`ticketType`	Yes	Ticket type name or ID (e.g. "User Story", "Epic", "Bug")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.3Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It adds the important trait of automatic ID resolution, which is helpful. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or what happens with optional fields like bin or parentId, leaving some gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short, purposeful sentences that immediately state the core purpose and a key behavioral nuance. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description sufficiently covers the primary operation and a notable behavior, but it omits details about return values and the interplay of optional parameters (bin, parentId). Given the schema handles parameter documentation, the overall context is solid but not exhaustive.

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?

All five parameters have descriptions in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's note about automatic ID resolution reinforces the 'name' aspect of flow and ticketType but adds no new constraints or syntax beyond the schema.

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 states the exact action ('Create a new ticket') and context ('in a flow'), making it unmistakable. It also highlights the automatic ID resolution, which distinguishes it from other ticket operations and clarifies its value.

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 to use the tool (whenever a new ticket needs to be created in a flow). It doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools, but since it is the only create-ticket tool among the siblings, no exclusion is necessary.

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