huly-mcp-selfhost

create_issue

Create a new issue in a Huly project by setting title, description, priority, assignee, due date, status, component, and milestone.

Instructions

Create a new issue in a project

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": {
      "workspace": "<workspace>",
      "projectIdentifier": "<projectIdentifier>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "create_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	Yes	Issue title
`dueDate`	No	Due date as ISO 8601 string, e.g. "2026-04-01"
`assignee`	No
`priority`	No	Issue priority	NoPriority
`workspace`	Yes
`statusName`	No	Default: project default
`description`	No	Issue description as Markdown (headings, bold, code, lists, tables, mermaid supported)
`componentLabel`	No
`milestoneLabel`	No
`projectIdentifier`	Yes	Project key

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.5.1Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations supply only the title and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden and delivers nothing. It does not say whether the author is auto-assigned, whether the issue lands in a default status, whether labels/components must already exist, or what identifiers come back. For a mutating create operation on a project-management system this is a substantial gap.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded and free of filler, which is optimal in form. The brevity is not padding but it also means there is nothing to structure beyond the single clause.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 10 parameters, no output schema, and moderate schema coverage, the description should explain defaults, identifier expectations, and the returned issue handle. None of that is present, so an agent cannot invoke this reliably beyond the three required fields.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 60%, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. Several parameters (workspace, assignee, componentLabel, milestoneLabel, projectIdentifier) have no schema description, and nothing in the description explains whether component/milestone labels create or reference existing entities, or how workspace interacts with projectIdentifier.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new issue') and names the container ('in a project'), so the agent knows what is produced. It stops short of differentiating itself from siblings such as create_issue_tree, which also creates issues.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to pick this tool over create_issue_tree or bulk_update_issues, no preconditions (workspace/project membership, status existence), and no statement of what is not supported. The agent must infer the choice purely from tool names.

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

Deploy Server