Create a new epic within a project to capture and track a high-level idea, setting its name, description, status, and priority under a parent project.
Create a new epic (idea) within a project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the epic | |
| status | No | Current status of the epic | idea |
| priority | No | Priority level of the epic | medium |
| project_id | Yes | UUID of the parent project | |
| description | No | Detailed description of the epic |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state whether the epic is immediately persisted, what the response contains (e.g., new epic id), whether duplicate names are allowed, or any auth/permission requirement for a mutation tool.
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 with no filler, though it is arguably too terse for a creation tool that could use a clause about the resulting epic.
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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description says nothing about the created resource, required permissions, or what happens on failure. It leaves the agent without enough behavioral context to call it confidently.
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 description coverage is 100% with enums and defaults documented, so the baseline is 3. The parenthetical '(idea)' hints that the default status matches the 'idea' enum value, adding a small amount of meaning but nothing the schema doesn't already imply.
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?
States a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('epic') scoped to a project, which cleanly separates it from create_issue and create_story. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it falls short of the top tier.
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 guidance on when to create an epic versus a story or issue, no prerequisites (e.g., the project must exist), and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.