Skip to main content
Glama

ACC MCP

by io.scanbimlabs

acc_list_issues

List and filter issues from a single ACC project (limit 50 per call) via the APS Construction Issues API.

When to use: The user or upstream agent needs to review open issues, count issues by status/priority, or look up an issue_id before calling acc_update_issue. E.g. 'show me all critical open issues on the Tower project'.

When NOT to use: Do not use to fetch RFIs (use acc_list_rfis) or to search documents.

APS scopes: data:read account:read. No write scope required.

Rate limits: ACC Issues API ~100 req/min per app; results pageable (limit 50 here, max 200 upstream). For large projects, call once and filter client-side instead of looping.

Errors: 401 (APS token expired — refresh); 403 (user lacks 'View Issues' permission on project or scope insufficient); 404 (project_id not found — verify 'b.' prefix and hub membership via acc_list_projects); 422 (invalid filter value — check status/priority spelling); 429 (rate limit — back off 60s); 5xx (ACC upstream — retry with jitter).

Side effects: None. Read-only and idempotent.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNoOptional status filter. Typical values: open, in_review, closed, draft.
priorityNoOptional priority filter. Typical values: critical, high, medium, low.
project_idYesACC project ID. MUST use 'b.' prefix literal. Obtain via acc_list_projects.
assigned_toNoOptional assignee APS user ID filter. Accepted but not currently forwarded as a URL filter by this server — filter client-side if needed.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Side effects: None. Read-only and idempotent', explains required scopes, rate limits, pagination behavior, and enumerates possible errors (401–5xx) with remedies. This is thorough and leaves no critical ambiguity.

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?

Although long, the description is structured into clear, labeled sections (When to use, When NOT to use, APS scopes, Rate limits, Errors, Side effects). Every section conveys independent, useful information; nothing is redundant. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only list/filter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is highly complete. It covers use cases, alternatives, scopes, rate limits, error handling, side effects, pagination, and even the peculiarity of the assigned_to filter. It provides everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly and handle failures.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the 50-per-call limit and filtering, but parameter-specific meaning is already fully covered by the schema (e.g., the assigned_to parameter's caveat is in the schema itself). The description does not materially enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb-object pairing: 'List and filter issues from a single ACC project (limit 50 per call)'. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by stating 'Do not use to fetch RFIs (use acc_list_rfis) or to search documents', making its scope unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

A dedicated 'When to use' section provides specific scenarios (review open issues, count by status/priority, look up issue_id) and a concrete example. A 'When NOT to use' section explicitly names alternative tools (acc_list_rfis, acc_search_documents), meeting the highest standard for usage guidance.

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

All ACC MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct entity (issue, RFI, project, document, file) and action (create, list, update, search, upload, summary). The 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' notes in descriptions further prevent confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent acc_verb_noun pattern (e.g., acc_create_issue, acc_list_projects, acc_upload_file). Verbs are always lowercase, nouns are singular, and there are no mixed conventions.

Tool Count5/5

9 tools is well-scoped for an ACC MCP server. It covers core project management operations (issues, RFIs, projects, documents, file upload) without being too sparse or bloated.

Completeness4/5

The set covers create, read (list), and update for issues, plus create and list for RFIs. Missing update for RFIs and a dedicated get-by-ID for individual issues or RFIs are minor gaps, but the core workflows are supported.

Resources