zenhub-mcp

zenhub_add_assignees_to_issues

Add multiple assignees to multiple issues at once by providing issue IDs and GitHub usernames.

Instructions

Add assignees to multiple issues

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": {
      "issue_ids": "<issue_ids>",
      "assignees": "<assignees>"
    },
    "name": "zenhub_add_assignees_to_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`issue_ids`	Yes	Array of issue IDs
`assignees`	Yes	Array of GitHub usernames

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.8Jun 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to specify whether assignees are appended or replace existing ones, if partial failures occur, or what permissions are needed. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It could benefit from more detail, but it achieves maximum conciseness.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Despite low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description omits behavioral details like idempotency, error handling, and effect on existing assignees. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps for an agent to infer.

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 coverage is 100% and includes descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the verb 'Add' and resource 'assignees to multiple issues', effectively communicating the primary action. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'zenhub_remove_assignees_from_issues' by targeting addition, but lacks explicit contrast.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'zenhub_remove_assignees_from_issues'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., assignees must be collaborators) or context for the operation.

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

Deploy Server