Create a queue macro to apply predefined comment text and issue field changes whenever the macro runs, simplifying bulk updates and recurring queue actions.
Create a queue macro: comment body and/or issue field updates applied on run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | Comment text created on run | |
| name | Yes | ||
| queueId | Yes | ||
| issueUpdate | No | Field → value map (null clears; supports set/add/remove operators) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive write. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: the stored macro is not applied immediately, only 'on run', implying the stored definition has no side effect until invoked. It says nothing about permissions, whether body and issueUpdate can both be omitted, or validation failures.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the action first and the payload second, with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity leaves behavior and usage unaddressed rather than being padded.
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 four-parameter create tool with a nested issueUpdate object and no output schema, the description covers the payload concept but omits required inputs (queueId, name), whether at least one of body/issueUpdate is mandatory, and what identifying information is returned. It is minimally viable rather than complete.
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 50%: 'body' and 'issueUpdate' are documented in the schema, while 'name' and 'queueId' are not. The description's 'comment body and/or issue field updates' maps to those two documented parameters and the 'and/or' correctly signals at least one content field is expected, but it adds no syntax, format, or value guidance beyond the schema.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a queue macro') and immediately defines what a macro is ('comment body and/or issue field updates applied on run'). It does not name or distinguish itself from the sibling update_queue_macro, but an agent can tell what object this creates.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as update_queue_macro for modifying an existing macro. The phrase 'applied on run' hints at the macro lifecycle but does not tell the agent when to choose create over update.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.