zube-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_epics

Retrieve epics for a project, optionally filtered by state (open/closed) and status (new/queued/in_progress/completed/closed/archived).

Instructions

List epics for a project. state: open/closed. status: new/queued/in_progress/completed/closed/archived.

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>"
    },
    "name": "list_epics"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`state`	No
`status`	No
`per_page`	No
`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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that state and status are filterable fields and provides their valid values, which is additional context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention pagination, optionality, or return behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences (or fragments) that state purpose and filter options without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description provides the essential purpose and filter values. Given the presence of an output schema and the simplicity of the list operation, it is sufficiently complete, though it lacks explicit mention of pagination and optional filter semantics, which are inferable from the schema.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The description adds meaning for the 'state' and 'status' parameters by listing acceptable values, which is not present in the schema (no enums). It does not explain 'page' or 'per_page' behavior, and the required 'project_id' is only implicitly referenced via 'for a project'. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this partial compensation yields a score of 3.

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 clearly states the tool lists epics for a project, using the verb 'list' and resource 'epics'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_epic (single epic) and list_epic_cards (lists cards within an epic).

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 usage for listing epics but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as get_epic or list_epic_cards. There are no exclusions or alternative references.

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