Add an issue to a weekly report's issue list. Automatically selects or creates the appropriate fieldset, or prompts for specification when multiple exist.
이슈를 내 주간보고 issue_list 필드셋에 등록한다. fieldsetName 미지정 시: 필드셋이 하나면 그것, 없으면 기본 필드셋 생성, 여러 개면 지정을 요청.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issueId | Yes | 등록할 이슈 id | |
| fieldsetName | No | 대상 필드셋 이름 (없으면 자동/기본) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a meaningful behavioral rule: if fieldsetName is omitted, it uses the only fieldset, creates a default fieldset if none exists, or requests specification if multiple exist. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not disclose side effects, permissions, or what happens if the weekly report itself does not exist.
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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the conditional rule appended efficiently. Every clause carries useful information and there is no redundant wording.
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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main action and the key edge cases for the optional parameter. It lacks some context such as prerequisites (e.g., whether the issue must already exist or whether a weekly report is required), but the provided detail is sufficient for most invocation scenarios.
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% with both parameters described, but the description adds value beyond the schema by specifying the exact selection behavior for omitted fieldsetName (one, none, or multiple fieldsets). This is not present in the input schema and helps an agent decide whether to provide fieldsetName.
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 states a clear verb and resource: registering an issue into '내 주간보고 issue_list 필드셋' (my weekly report issue_list fieldset). It is specific enough to understand the core action, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like jdra_register_jira_to_weekly_report or jdra_import_jira_issue.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; no sibling tools are mentioned or contrasted. The conditional logic about fieldsetName is parameter-level guidance, not tool-selection guidance, so it does not help an agent choose between this and related registration tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.