ProdPad MCP Server

Get Roadmaps for Product

prodpad_get_product_roadmaps

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the active roadmap for a specific product by its ID to review current cards and planned product work.

Instructions

Get the roadmap for a specific product with active cards.

Args:

id (string): Product ID (numeric)

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "prodpad_get_product_roadmaps"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The resource ID (numeric or UUID)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one behavioral detail beyond them — that the result is limited to 'active cards' — but says nothing about response shape or pagination.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Very short and front-loaded, with the purpose in the first sentence. The 'Args:' line largely duplicates what the schema already provides, which is minor waste but not harmful.

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

Completeness3/5

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 and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it hints at 'active cards' yet never indicates what the roadmap payload contains, which is the kind of detail a description must carry when no output schema exists.

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% and there is a single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description clarifies the id is a 'Product ID (numeric)', which sharpens the schema's generic 'resource ID' wording slightly, but adds no further constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource (get the roadmap for a specific product) and adds a scoping qualifier (active cards). It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like prodpad_list_roadmaps or prodpad_get_roadmap.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus prodpad_list_roadmaps or prodpad_get_roadmap, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the 'specific product' phrasing.

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