kanban_create_epicCreate a new epic in a project using project key and name, with optional color and description. Break down large initiatives into trackable epics for better planning.
Create a new epic in a project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| color | No | ||
| projectKey | Yes | ||
| description | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| epic | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool mutates state by creating an epic, but it says nothing about required project existence, side effects on the board, or validation behavior.
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 and front-loads the action, with no wasted words. However, the brevity omits contextual information that would make the tool easier to invoke correctly.
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 creation tool with four parameters and no annotations, a single sentence is insufficient. It explains neither the required field semantics nor when the tool should be selected, even though an output schema exists.
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 0%, and the description mentions none of the four parameters (name, projectKey, color, description). It fails to compensate for the schema's complete lack of parameter documentation.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new epic in a project.' This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling operations like kanban_update_epic, kanban_delete_epic, and kanban_create_ticket.
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?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as creating a ticket or updating an existing epic. The description implies usage only through the verb 'create' but provides no prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.