Saga MCP

by spranab

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

template_apply

Apply a template to an epic to create tasks, substituting {variable} placeholders with provided key-value pairs.

Instructions

Apply a template to create tasks in an epic. Replaces {variable} placeholders with provided values.

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": {
      "template_id": "<template_id>",
      "epic_id": "<epic_id>"
    },
    "name": "template_apply"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`epic_id`	Yes	Epic to create tasks in
`variables`	No	Key-value pairs for {variable} substitution (e.g., {"feature": "auth"})
`template_id`	Yes	Template ID to apply

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.5.3Mar 16, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds specific behavior—placeholder substitution and task creation—that enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting annotations.

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?

Two sentences front-load the core action and key behavior (placeholder replacement). No extraneous words; every sentence earns its place.

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 a tool with 3 params, no output schema, and nested objects, the description covers purpose and substitution behavior. Missing details like error handling or permissions are acceptable given context signals, though a note on idempotency would improve completeness.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no new param-level detail beyond reinforcing the variable substitution mechanism, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 applies a template to create tasks in an epic. This verb-object structure distinguishes it from siblings like template_create, task_create, or epic_create.

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 this tool is for converting a template into tasks within an epic, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like manually creating tasks or using other template tools. No when-not or exclusion guidance is provided.

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