prodpad_get_idea_userstoriesRetrieve all user stories linked to a specific ProdPad idea by providing its numeric ID. Use it to review idea-related requirements and track product development details.
Get a list of user stories associated to an idea.
Args:
id (string): Numeric ID of the idea
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The resource ID (numeric or UUID) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered there. The description adds nothing beyond that — no pagination behavior, no ordering, no note on what happens for an idea with no stories — so it contributes essentially no behavioral context.
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 purpose sentence front-loaded, followed by a compact Args block — nothing padded. The Args block partially duplicates the schema but stays short enough not to be wasteful.
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 tool with annotations covering safety, the definition is minimally viable. With no output schema, it should ideally hint at the returned user-story shape or pagination, and it does not.
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 already documents the single parameter, making 3 the baseline. The description's 'Numeric ID of the idea' is actually narrower than the schema's 'numeric or UUID', adding no new meaning and slightly understating accepted formats.
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 ('Get a list of user stories') with the scoping qualifier 'associated to an idea', which separates it from the generic prodpad_list_userstories sibling. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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?
Usage is only implied by the name and phrase 'associated to an idea' — the agent can infer this returns the child collection of a specific idea. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to prodpad_list_userstories as the unscoped alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.