Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
zenhub-mcp

zenhub-mcp

by derekbar90
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

zenhub_get_epic

Retrieve detailed information about a specific epic by providing its ID.

Instructions

Get an epic

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": {
      "epic_id": "<epic_id>"
    },
    "name": "zenhub_get_epic"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
epic_idYesEpic ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.8

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior1/5

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 says nothing about side effects, permissions, performance, or return characteristics. A read operation like 'get' is implied but not confirmed, and no constraints are mentioned.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short (three words) but under-specified. It is not verbose, but it fails to provide sufficient information, crossing into under-specification rather than efficient 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?

For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It states the basic action, but agents might benefit from knowing what fields are returned or typical usage patterns.

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% as the single parameter 'epic_id' is fully described in the schema with 'Epic ID'. The description adds no further context or constraints, meeting baseline expectations.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Get an epic' specifies a verb and resource, but it is vague and does not differentiate this tool from similar retrieval tools like get_issue_by_info or get_workspace_issues. It lacks context on what an epic is in this system.

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 (e.g., zenhub_get_issue_by_info, zenhub_get_workspace_issues). There are no criteria for selecting this tool over siblings.

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