Create a new chain from a ticket and generate its chain_id from a kebab-case title, so AI coding assistants can track project work and handoffs across sessions.
Create a new chain from a ticket. Generates chain_id from kebab-case title.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that chain_id is generated from a kebab-case title, but it does not describe side effects, auth requirements, or what happens to the source ticket.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the ID-generation detail. No filler or redundancy.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the destructive safety profile. However, for a creation tool with many optional fields and sibling alternatives, the description omits usage conditions, prerequisites, and the effect of optional parameters, leaving it minimal but not misleading.
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?
The nested schema already provides descriptions for all nine fields, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds only that the title is used in kebab-case to generate chain_id; optional fields like entity, chain_type, and expected_sequence are not mentioned in the description but are covered by the schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new chain'), scopes it to a ticket, and adds ID generation behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read, update, list, and lifecycle-chain tools.
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 when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or prerequisites are given. The phrase 'from a ticket' implies a prerequisite but does not state that the ticket must exist or when to choose this over sibling tools like spawn_child_chain or cmd_new_ticket.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.