Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
zenhub-mcp

zenhub-mcp

by derekbar90
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

zenhub_add_repository_to_workspace

Add a GitHub repository to a specific workspace by providing the workspace ID and the GitHub repository ID.

Instructions

Add a GitHub repository to a workspace

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_id": "<workspace_id>",
      "repository_github_id": "<repository_github_id>"
    },
    "name": "zenhub_add_repository_to_workspace"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
workspace_idYesWorkspace ID
repository_github_idYesGitHub repository ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.8

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention idempotency, authentication needs, or what happens if the repository is already in the workspace. This is insufficient 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 sentence, no unnecessary words. However, the extreme brevity limits the information conveyed; it is concise but at the cost 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 no output schema and simple parameters, the description should still cover what the tool does behaviorally. It does not explain success/error handling, side effects, or prerequisites, leaving the agent underinformed.

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%, so the descriptions in the schema already explain the parameters. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the action itself, which is adequate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action: adding a GitHub repository to a workspace. The verb 'Add' and resources 'GitHub repository' and 'workspace' are specific, and the tool distinguishes from sibling tools that add entities to issues or sprints.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like zenhub_get_workspace_repositories or other add tools. Lacks context about prerequisites or when not to use.

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