Link an existing user story to an epic using internal IDs; convert Taiga ref numbers first with taiga_resolve_ref.
Link an existing user story to an epic. Both epic_id and story_id must be internal IDs (not ref #s). Use taiga_resolve_ref to convert ref numbers first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| epic_id | Yes | Internal epic ID (not ref #) | |
| story_id | Yes | Internal story ID (not ref #) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It meaningfully discloses the internal-ID requirement and the resolve_ref pathway, but it does not say whether linking replaces an existing epic association, whether the call is idempotent, what permissions are needed, or what is returned. Adequate but with real gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the ID constraint, then the remediation step. Every sentence adds information; nothing is padding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers input format and the ref-resolution workflow, which is the main failure mode. It omits behavior on re-link/conflict and any hint of the response, leaving an agent unable to predict the outcome of the call.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and both properties already state 'Internal epic ID (not ref #)' and 'Internal story ID (not ref #)'. The description only restates that constraint, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Link an existing user story to an epic'), which is unambiguous and immediately distinguishes it from taiga_unlink_story_from_epic and from the create/update story tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives concrete pre-call guidance: both IDs must be internal, and taiga_resolve_ref should be used to convert ref numbers first. That covers the main prerequisite. It does not say when not to use it (e.g., if the story is already linked, or vs. setting an epic field on create), so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.