Shortcut MCP Server

Transition Story State

transition_story_state

Transition a story to a different workflow state using its ID or name. Streamlines updating story status directly through the Shortcut API.

Instructions

Move a story to a new workflow state using either state ID or state name.

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": {
      "story_id": "<story_id>"
    },
    "name": "transition_story_state"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`confirm`	No	Must be CONFIRM_WRITE to execute
`dry_run`	No
`story_id`	Yes
`workflow_name`	No
`workflow_state_id`	No
`workflow_state_name`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full transparency. It indicates mutation ('Move') but does not disclose the CONFIRM_WRITE requirement, dry-run support, or any state transition constraints. This leaves the agent without critical safety and behavioral context for a write operation.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded verb, no filler. Appropriate size for the minimal content it conveys.

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?

With 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits the confirmation and dry-run behavior, the role of workflow_name, and the expected response or errors, making the tool under-specified for reliable invocation.

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 coverage is only 17%, so the description needs to compensate. It adds that the target state can be identified by ID or name, which clarifies workflow_state_id and workflow_state_name. However, it does not explain workflow_name, confirm, or dry_run, and no exclusivity or combination rules are given.

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 uses a specific action ('Move'), identifies the resource ('a story'), and specifies the target ('a new workflow state') with input alternatives ('state ID or state name'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like bulk_move_stories or update_story.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this tool is for changing a story's workflow state but gives no explicit 'when to use' context or alternatives. It does not mention bulk operations, prerequisites, or cases where update_story should be used instead, so guidance is limited to the obvious interpretation.

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

Deploy Server