Skip to main content
Glama
spranab

Saga MCP

by spranab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

epic_update

Idempotent

Update an epic's name, tags, priority, or description, change its status or branch scope, and cancel it to soft-delete. Only pass fields you want to change.

Instructions

Update an epic. Pass only the fields you want to change. Set status to "cancelled" to soft-delete. Pass branch="current" to pin to the active branch, or empty string to clear.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesEpic ID
nameNo
tagsNo
branchNoBranch to scope this epic to: "current" = active branch, "" = clear.
statusNo
priorityNo
sort_orderNo
descriptionNo

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; pass empty string to clear (branch-agnostic)."New value: +"Branch to scope this epic to: \"current\" = active branch, \"\" = clear."
  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; pass empty string to clear (branch-agnostic).",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observedv1.5.3

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, it reveals that the update is partial, that setting status to 'cancelled' performs a soft-delete rather than a hard destruction, and that branch scoping can be pinned or cleared. These are exactly the behavioral details an agent needs. The description does not contradict the annotations: destructiveHint=false is consistent with soft-delete.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The core action comes first, then the two non-obvious special behaviors (soft-delete and branch pinning) are stated in compact, actionable form.

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?

For an update tool with eight parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation semantics: partial updates, soft-delete, and branch scope. It does not state what the response returns, but that is not strictly required to invoke the tool correctly; the key edge cases are documented.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The general instruction 'Pass only the fields you want to change' adds meaningful semantics to all optional parameters, clarifying that omitted fields are left untouched. The description also explains the special branch values and the special 'cancelled' status beyond the raw schema, which is valuable given only 25% schema description coverage. It does not elaborate on obvious fields like name/tags/priority, but their names and types are self-explanatory.

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?

'Update an epic' names the exact verb and resource, and 'Pass only the fields you want to change' signals PATCH-style partial update rather than full replacement. This also separates it from sibling creation/listing/archiving tools, and the soft-delete and branch behavior add precision.

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 concrete operational conditions: status 'cancelled' is the soft-delete path, and branch accepts either 'current' for active-branch pinning or an empty string to clear. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the update-vs-create distinction is clear enough from the verb and sibling names.

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