Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
PinchMCP

PinchMCP

by 0xEl1yahu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Explain a ticket's blockers

explain_blockers

Identify tickets that block or are unblocked by a given ticket in a project. Use dominator analysis to trace transitive dependencies.

Instructions

Show what transitively blocks a ticket and what it transitively unblocks. project_id accepts a project name, URL slug, or UUID.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "ticket_id": "<ticket_id>"
    },
    "name": "explain_blockers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ticket_idYes
project_idYesLinear project name, URL slug, or UUID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry transparency. It mentions transitive analysis but does not disclose side effects (read-only assumed), authentication needs, output format, or rate limits. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 with no redundancy. First sentence delivers purpose, second adds parameter detail. Efficient and front-loaded.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite low complexity, the tool lacks output schema and the description fails to explain return structure. Requires inference about what 'show' means. Incomplete for effective agent use.

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 coverage is 50% (only project_id described). Description repeats project_id's accepted formats but adds no new semantic insight for either parameter. ticket_id lacks description in both schema and text.

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?

Clearly states the tool shows transitive blockers and unblockers for a ticket. The verb and resource are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like 'critical_path' which likely focuses on path analysis rather than block relationships.

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?

Implies usage when needing to understand blocker relationships, but no explicit guidance on when not to use or when to prefer alternatives like 'critical_path' or 'surface_gaps'.

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