zenhub-mcp

zenhub_create_sprint

Create a new sprint by providing name, start and end dates, and workspace ID. Optionally set pipeline, total story points, and move unfinished issues.

Instructions

Create a new sprint

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "start_date": "<start_date>",
      "end_date": "<end_date>",
      "workspace_id": "<workspace_id>"
    },
    "name": "zenhub_create_sprint"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Sprint name
`start_date`	Yes	Start date (ISO format)
`end_date`	Yes	End date (ISO format)
`timezone`	No	Timezone identifier
`workspace_id`	Yes	Workspace ID
`settings`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.8Jun 7, 2026

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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Create a new sprint' without mentioning side effects, authorization needs, or consequences (e.g., whether it closes previous sprints). Very opaque.

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?

A single sentence, no fluff. It is concise and to the point, though it could arguably be too brief. Still earns a 4 for efficiency.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Despite having 6 parameters and nested objects, the description provides no context about what a sprint is, what happens on creation, or the response. Very incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 83%, so the schema already describes most parameters. The description adds no extra meaning. Baseline is 3; description does not compensate for the few undocumented parameters (e.g., nested settings).

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 'Create a new sprint' clearly states the action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'update_sprint'. It is not a tautology as it adds a verb, but it is minimal.

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 (e.g., zenhub_add_issues_to_sprints, zenhub_update_sprint). No context about prerequisites, permissions, 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