Skip to main content
Glama
spranab

Saga MCP

by spranab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

epic_create

Create an epic in a project to group related tasks into a feature or workstream. Specify name, project, description, status, priority, tags, or branch to organize work.

Instructions

Create an epic within a project. Epics group related tasks into a feature or workstream.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesEpic name
tagsNo
branchNoBranch to scope this epic to: "current" = active branch, omit/"" = branch-agnostic.
statusNoplanned
priorityNomedium
project_idYesParent project ID
descriptionNoEpic description

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.10.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / branch / description
      Previous value: -"Git branch this epic is scoped to. Pass \"current\" to auto-detect from the repo. Omit or pass empty string for a branch-agnostic (global) epic."New value: +"Branch to scope this epic to: \"current\" = active branch, omit/\"\" = branch-agnostic."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.5
    • addedInput schema / properties / branch
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Git branch this epic is scoped to. Pass \"current\" to auto-detect from the repo. Omit or pass empty string for a branch-agnostic (global) epic.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observedv1.5.3

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, destructive, and idempotency hints. The description adds the domain behavior of grouping tasks but does not disclose extra operational details such as whether the project must already exist, how duplicates are handled, or what happens after creation. It does not contradict the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences and directly states the action and conceptual purpose without fluff. It is well front-loaded, though the second sentence could have provided operational guidance instead of repeating the obvious epic concept.

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 has seven parameters and no output schema, and the description only covers the high-level purpose. Required parameters can be inferred, and the schema handles enums and defaults, but the description does not mention the expected return value, prerequisites, or behavior of optional fields. It is adequate but not complete.

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 description coverage is 57%, and the description adds essentially no parameter-level meaning. It loosely relates 'project' to project_id and 'related tasks' to the epic's purpose, but it does not clarify tags, status, priority, or branch behavior beyond what the schema already provides. The description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 verb and resource: 'Create an epic within a project.' It also explains the concept of an epic by stating that epics group related tasks into a feature or workstream, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like epic_list, epic_update, and epic_archive.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: when creating an epic in a project to group related tasks. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but this is a creation tool and the intended use is straightforward.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools