Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
zenhub-mcp

zenhub-mcp

by derekbar90
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

zenhub_add_issues_to_sprints

Add multiple issues to specified sprints. Provide arrays of issue IDs and sprint IDs to assign issues to sprints.

Instructions

Add issues to sprints

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>",
      "sprint_ids": "<sprint_ids>"
    },
    "name": "zenhub_add_issues_to_sprints"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issue_idsYesArray of issue IDs
sprint_idsYesArray of sprint IDs

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.8

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
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, but it only states the action. It does not explain whether issues are appended or replaced, idempotency, required permissions, or side effects, leaving critical gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with no fluff, but it is too terse and lacks important contextual information. It is efficient but at the expense of completeness.

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?

Given the tool complexity (two array parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not address behavioral nuances like whether existing sprint assignments are overwritten, which is critical for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 100% with basic descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not enhance understanding.

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 'Add issues to sprints' clearly states the verb and resource, making the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like zenhub_update_sprint, which might also involve adding issues to a sprint.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or use cases that would help an agent decide between this and related tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools