Add an issue to a cycle by providing the issue ID and cycle ID. Use this to group issues into cycles for organized sprint planning.
Add an issue to a cycle
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cycleId | Yes | ID of the cycle to add the issue to | |
| issueId | Yes | ID or identifier of the issue to add to the cycle |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issue | No | ||
| success | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral traits beyond what annotations already provide (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). It does not explain effects like idempotency or what 'add' entails operationally.
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 very concise with a single sentence, but it could be slightly more structured to include usage cues. No unnecessary words, but it trades completeness for brevity.
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 the tool's simplicity, the description is adequate but lacks context about when adding to a cycle is appropriate or any side effects. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description remains minimal.
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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema field descriptions, which is acceptable but not improved.
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 'Add an issue to a cycle' uses a specific verb ('add') and clearly identifies the objects (issue and cycle). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'removeIssueFromCycle' and 'addIssueToProject' by specifying the target resource.
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 such as 'removeIssueFromCycle' or 'addIssueToProject'. It does not mention any prerequisites or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.