zube-mcp

by reenrik

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

get_epic

Retrieve detailed information for a specific epic within a Zube project by providing project and epic IDs.

Instructions

Get details for a specific epic.

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_id": "<project_id>",
      "epic_id": "<epic_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_epic"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`epic_id`	Yes
`project_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get details' implies a read-only operation, but there is no statement about error handling (e.g., 404 if not found), permissions, or side effects. The output schema captures return structure, but behavioral traits remain unaddressed.

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?

The description is a single, complete sentence that states the core purpose without any filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple get operation, and every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple, has two self-explanatory parameters, and an output schema exists so return values are not required in the description. However, the description lacks any usage context or behavioral notes, making it minimally viable but with clear gaps in guidance for an agent that must choose among many sibling tools.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not compensate. The description never mentions project_id or epic_id, leaving the meaning of these parameters entirely to their names and types. No added value beyond the input schema, which already lists them as integers.

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 'Get details for a specific epic' clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (epic), with 'specific' implying a single item as opposed to listing. It distinguishes from sibling list_epics, though not explicitly naming it. It lacks the word 'by ID' but the schema supplies that.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_epics or get_card. No mention of prerequisites, such as needing a pre-existing epic_id, or that list_epics should be used to search for an epic first.

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