Shortcut MCP Server

Create Shortcut Epic

create_epic

Create a new epic in Shortcut to bundle related stories and milestones. Provide a name and optional details like description, owner, labels, and group.

Instructions

Create a new epic in Shortcut.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_epic"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes
`confirm`	No	Must be CONFIRM_WRITE to execute
`dry_run`	No
`group_id`	No
`label_ids`	No
`owner_ids`	No
`description`	No
`requested_by_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'create' without mentioning the required confirm parameter, dry_run option, or any side effects. The description is minimally transparent and does not reveal important safety or execution details.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. However, it is extremely terse for a tool with 8 parameters, so while concise, it sacrifices informative content for brevity.

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?

Given the complexity of an 8-parameter create operation, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-line description is not enough. The agent is left without context about required inputs, confirmation behavior, or expected outcomes, making the description incomplete for reliable invocation.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The schema has 8 parameters but only 13% have descriptions, and the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning. Required fields like name, the confirm flag, dry_run, and group_id are left entirely unexplained, so the agent cannot correctly populate them based on this description.

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 in Shortcut' uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('epic'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_epic or archive_epic. It is concise and unambiguous about the tool's primary function.

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 such as update_epic or create_milestone. No context is provided about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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

Deploy Server