ProdPad MCP Server

List ProdPad Key Results

prodpad_list_keyresults

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all key results and optionally filter to product-level or portfolio-level to focus on the relevant OKRs.

Instructions

List all key results. Optionally filter to product-level or portfolio-level.

Args:

product (boolean): Product-level only
portfolio (boolean): Portfolio-level only

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "prodpad_list_keyresults"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`product`	No	Filter to product-level key results only
`portfolio`	No	Filter to portfolio-level key results only

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, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the existence of product/portfolio scoping, with no note on pagination, return volume, or default (unfiltered) behavior.

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 summary sentence is efficient, but the trailing Args block is pure duplication of the input schema and does not earn its space.

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 zero-required-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits what is actually returned and whether the two flags are mutually exclusive, which an agent would want before calling.

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 fully documents both booleans. The description merely restates them ('Product-level only', 'Portfolio-level only') with no added meaning, fitting the baseline of 3.

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 (List) and resource (key results) plus the filterable dimension. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like prodpad_get_objective_keyresults or prodpad_get_product_keyresults, leaving ambiguity about when a global list is preferred.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the several sibling key-result tools (get_keyresult, get_objective_keyresults, get_product_keyresults). The two boolean flags are explained only mechanically, not as usage conditions.

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