zenhub-mcp

zenhub_create_issue_dependency

Create a dependency where one issue blocks another in ZenHub.

Instructions

Create a dependency between two issues (blocking → blocked)

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": {
      "blocking_repository_gh_id": "<blocking_repository_gh_id>",
      "blocking_issue_number": "<blocking_issue_number>",
      "blocked_repository_gh_id": "<blocked_repository_gh_id>",
      "blocked_issue_number": "<blocked_issue_number>"
    },
    "name": "zenhub_create_issue_dependency"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`blocking_repository_gh_id`	Yes	GitHub repository numeric ID for the blocking issue
`blocking_issue_number`	Yes	Issue number of the blocking issue within the repository
`blocked_repository_gh_id`	Yes	GitHub repository numeric ID for the blocked issue
`blocked_issue_number`	Yes	Issue number of the blocked issue within the repository

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.8Jun 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the core action. Important details such as whether dependencies can span repositories, cycle detection, or required permissions are omitted.

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 is efficient, though it lacks depth in critical areas.

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 has 4 required parameters and no output schema, the description should explain the relationship direction, constraints (e.g., both issues must exist), and potential errors. It does not provide enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. However, the tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it simply repeats the property names. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Create a dependency'), the resource ('two issues'), and the direction ('blocking → blocked'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like zenhub_delete_issue_dependency.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description only states the basic purpose, lacking context for appropriate usage.

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

Deploy Server