@illodev/taiga-mcp

taiga_userstory_statuses_create

Create a new user story status in Taiga by specifying project ID, name, optional color, order, and closed state.

Instructions

Create a new userstory statuses.

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>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "taiga_userstory_statuses_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Name
`color`	No	HEX color
`order`	No
`project`	Yes	Project ID
`is_closed`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Create a new userstory statuses,' which implies a mutation but does not disclose required permissions, side effects, or the fact that it operates within a project context. This is a minimal disclosure of behavior.

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 very concise, consisting of one short sentence with no waste. However, it essentially restates the tool name and lacks substantive content, so it does not maximize the dimension of being appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely under-specified. It doesn't indicate required fields (project and name), what the created status represents, or what the response contains, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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?

The schema covers 60% of parameters with descriptions (name, color, project). The tool description adds no parameter information beyond the schema and doesn't clarify the meaning of 'order' or 'is_closed,' which lack schema descriptions. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 identifies the action as 'Create' and the resource as 'userstory statuses,' providing a specific verb and object. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like taiga_task_statuses_create or taiga_issue_statuses_create, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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. The description only says 'Create a new userstory statuses' without mentioning any prerequisites, exclusions, or differences from other status creation tools, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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

Deploy Server