Skip to main content
Glama
JTreadwell1

ProdPad MCP Server

by JTreadwell1

List ProdPad Ideas

prodpad_list_ideas
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve and filter ideas from ProdPad with pagination, status, tags, product, and state options to manage product feedback and roadmap items.

Instructions

List ideas in ProdPad with optional filters and pagination.

Args:

  • page (number): Page number, default 1

  • size (number): Items per page, default 25

  • status (string): Filter by status name or ID

  • tags (string): Comma-separated tag IDs (OR logic)

  • product (string): Filter by product ID

  • state (string): active, active_public, archived, or unsorted

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number (1-based)
sizeNoItems per page (max 100)
tagsNoComma-separated tag IDs or UUIDs to filter by (OR logic)
stateNoFilter by idea state (default: active)
statusNoFilter by status name or ID. Use prodpad_list_statuses to find valid values
productNoFilter by product UUID or ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the defaults for page/size and the OR logic for tags, which is modest additional 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a tight argument list; no filler sentences. Slightly redundant with the schema but efficient overall.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and a fully described schema, the definition is nearly sufficient. It does not mention the shape of the paginated response (e.g. total counts or cursors), but with no output schema that gap is small.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including defaults, the max-100 cap, and the state enum. The description largely restates those parameters without adding syntax or format meaning beyond them.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List ideas in ProdPad') plus the scoping context of filters and pagination. It would be a 5 if it distinguished itself from prodpad_get_idea or prodpad_search, which are the closest siblings an agent must choose between.

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?

The description names the available filters but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus prodpad_search or prodpad_get_idea, and no prerequisites. The only routing hint (prodpad_list_statuses for status values) lives in the schema, not the description.

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