Lists the statuses in a space, grouped by epic (with the epic's id, as list_epics returns it) - the ids create_issue/edit_issue_status accept. Each status has a category - Created (not started), InProgress or Completed (finished) - telling what it means whatever its name, and its categoryId, what list_issues' statusCategoryId filter takes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spaceKey | Yes | The space to list statuses for, e.g. 'BRD', from list_spaces. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / spaceKey / descriptionPrevious value: -"The space to list statuses for, e.g. 'BRD'."New value: +"The space to list statuses for, e.g. 'BRD', from list_spaces."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape (grouped by epic, per-status category and categoryId) which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about permissions, whether statuses are workspace- or space-scoped beyond the parameter, caching, or ordering of the epic grouping.
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?
One dense but well-structured sentence: the listing action and grouping are front-loaded, followed by id provenance and category semantics. Slightly overstuffed with multiple parenthetical cross-references, but every clause carries information.
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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the important ground: what is returned, how it is grouped, what each id feeds into, and the meaning of the category values. Only auth/permission expectations and any ordering guarantees are missing.
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 100% and the single spaceKey parameter already carries an example ('BRD') plus its source ('from list_spaces') in its own description. The prose adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Lists the statuses in a space, grouped by epic') and immediately distinguishes itself from list_epics and list_issues by qualifying exactly which ids it returns and where they are consumed. An agent can tell this apart from its siblings without opening any schema.
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?
The description routes usage implicitly but clearly: the returned ids are the ones 'create_issue/edit_issue_status accept' and the categoryId is what 'list_issues statusCategoryId filter takes', so an agent knows this is a lookup step before creating/editing issues or filtering them. There is no explicit when-not-to-use statement or named alternative list tool, keeping it short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.