Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
zenhub-mcp

zenhub-mcp

by derekbar90
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

zenhub_update_epic

Update an epic's title and/or description by providing its ID.

Instructions

Update 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_update_epic"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
epic_idYesEpic ID
titleNoEpic title
descriptionNoEpic description

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.8

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description implies a mutation operation ('update') but fails to disclose side effects, authorization requirements, or constraints like idempotency. With no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context but does not.

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 extremely concise (3 words), but lacks structure and necessary detail. While brevity is valued, the trade-off here results in insufficient guidance.

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 no annotations, the description should provide more context about what fields can be updated and expected outcomes. It offers minimal information beyond the tool name, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a minimal description. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'update' and resource 'epic', establishing the primary action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like zenhub_create_epic or zenhub_update_epic_dates, missing an opportunity to specify which fields are updated.

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 such as zenhub_update_epic_dates for date-specific updates. No when-not-to use or prerequisite information is provided.

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