Need issue type details? Fetch them by providing the project UUID and the issue type UUID to inspect its attributes.
Get details of a specific issue type
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the issue type to get | |
| project_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the project containing the issue type |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5-8seneca.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's safe, idempotent, requires authentication, or has rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more informative. The structure is front-loaded but lacks depth, earning a high score for conciseness but not perfect due to under-specification.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple tool with 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, error conditions, or how it fits into the broader context of issue management. This leaves gaps for an agent to understand full tool behavior.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (project_id and type_id). The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, as it doesn't explain parameter relationships or usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description 'Get details of a specific issue type' clearly states the action (get) and resource (issue type), but it's vague about what 'details' include and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'list_issue_types' or 'get_issue_using_readable_identifier'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about scope or output.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as needing a project_id and type_id versus using list_issue_types for browsing. This leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.