@illodev/taiga-mcp

taiga_epics_create

Creates a new epic in a Taiga project using project ID and subject. Supports optional fields for description, tags, watchers, assignee, and color to structure work.

Instructions

Create a new 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": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "subject": "<subject>"
    },
    "name": "taiga_epics_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tags`	No
`color`	No	HEX color
`project`	Yes	Project ID
`subject`	Yes	Epic subject/name
`watchers`	No
`assigned_to`	No
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new epic' implies a write operation but does not mention permissions, side effects, response format, or reversibility. It is slightly above a score of 1 because it at least clearly conveys the mutating nature.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded, stating the exact action immediately. While terse, under-specification is penalized in other dimensions, not here.

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 create operation with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this one-line description is severely under-specified. It does not explain required fields, expected behavior, or what the caller will receive. It is barely above the 'Process' tautology level.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 43%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not mention any parameters, leaving tags, watchers, assigned_to, and description unexplained. The schema's own descriptions for project, subject, and color are the only help, but the description adds zero value.

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 'Create a new epic' is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like taiga_epics_bulk_create (singular 'a new epic') and from create tools for other entities (userstories, tasks, etc.).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states the action without context such as 'use this for single epic creation; for bulk creation use taiga_epics_bulk_create'.

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

Deploy Server