huly-mcp-selfhost

create_issue_tree

Build an epic with linked sub-issues and blockers in one call, skipping duplicate titles and defaulting to a dry run before changes.

Instructions

Plan → epic + sub-issues with blockers; skips duplicates; dry run first

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>",
      "children": "<children>"
    },
    "name": "create_issue_tree"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`epic`	No	New epic
`dryRun`	No
`children`	Yes
`workspace`	Yes
`componentLabel`	No	Default for epic and children
`epicIdentifier`	No	Or an existing epic
`milestoneLabel`	No	Default for epic and children
`skipDuplicates`	No	Reuse same-title issues
`projectIdentifier`	Yes	Project key

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.5.1Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=false, so the description does real work by disclosing duplicate reuse and a dry-run-first default. It stops short of saying what a dry run actually returns, whether partial failures roll back, or how blockedBy references are resolved at execution time.

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?

A single front-loaded clause with no filler, and the key behaviors are ordered by importance. The arrow/telegraphic style is dense to the point of being slightly cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a 9-parameter tool with nested child objects, blocker references, and no output schema, one line is thin. An agent still lacks the dry-run response shape, the semantics of attaching children to an existing epic, and failure/ordering behavior, all of which matter before invoking a bulk-creating tool.

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 67%, so the description must compensate somewhat, and it does hint at blockers, duplicate skipping, and dry run. However, the epic-versus-epicIdentifier distinction, the defaulting behavior of componentLabel/milestoneLabel, and the role of workspace/projectIdentifier are left entirely to the schema.

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 names the concrete outcome: an epic plus sub-issues wired with blockers, with duplicate skipping and a dry-run-first posture. That distinguishes it from the single-issue sibling create_issue, though it never names that sibling or any other alternative explicitly.

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?

'Plan → ... dry run first' implies this is the planning/bulk-creation entry point rather than the single-issue path, which is useful implied guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use versus create_issue or bulk_update_issues, and no stated prerequisites such as required permissions or when an existing epic should be targeted instead.

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

Deploy Server