Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
zenhub-mcp

zenhub-mcp

by derekbar90
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

zenhub_remove_assignees_from_issues

Remove specified assignees from multiple issues at once. Streamline issue management by batch-updating assignee lists.

Instructions

Remove assignees from multiple issues

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>",
      "assignees": "<assignees>"
    },
    "name": "zenhub_remove_assignees_from_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issue_idsYesArray of issue IDs
assigneesYesArray of GitHub usernames

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.8

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It states a mutating operation but does not explain side effects, whether it removes only specified assignees or all, or if it requires specific permissions. The description is insufficiently transparent.

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 a single sentence, efficient but lacking detail. It is not overly verbose, but given the need for behavioral context, it is slightly too terse.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about expected behavior, return values, or potential failures. It is incomplete.

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 schema fully describes the parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 of removing assignees from multiple issues, and the name with 'zenhub_' clarifies the domain. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'zenhub_add_assignees_to_issues'.

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, or any prerequisites. The description does not mention permissions, error conditions, or exclude scenarios.

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