Retrieve all cycles for a given project by supplying its UUID, enabling project planning and tracking.
Get all cycles for a specific project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the project to get cycles for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5-8seneca.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how results are returned (e.g., pagination), or error handling, leaving significant gaps.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'cycles' are in this context, the format of returned data, or potential limitations, which is inadequate for a tool that likely returns a list of items.
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 the 'project_id' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the parameter is required, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline for high coverage.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all cycles for a specific project'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_cycle' (singular) or 'list_cycle_issues', which might cause confusion about scope.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_cycle' (for a single cycle) or 'list_cycle_issues' (for issues within cycles). It lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.