Huly MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation tool, implying a write operation, but doesn't mention permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns an issue ID). This leaves significant 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. However, it could be more front-loaded by immediately stating the core purpose, and the phrase 'with correct fields' is somewhat vague, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., issue ID, success confirmation), error conditions, or behavioral nuances like whether duplicate issues are allowed, which are critical for an agent to use it effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all 6 parameters with their types, enums, and requirements. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate but not enhanced coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a new issue') and target resource ('in Huly'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'list_issues' beyond the basic create vs. list difference, missing an opportunity to clarify when to use each.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_issues' or 'list_projects'. It mentions 'with correct fields' but doesn't specify what constitutes correct fields or any prerequisites, leaving the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.