Skip to main content
Glama

pylon_list_issues

Retrieve customer support issues within a specified time range (maximum 30 days) to monitor and analyze support requests.

Instructions

List issues within a time range (max 30 days)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
start_timeYesStart time in RFC3339 format (e.g., 2024-01-01T00:00:00Z)
end_timeYesEnd time in RFC3339 format (e.g., 2024-01-31T00:00:00Z)

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:288-305 (registration)
    MCP tool registration for 'pylon_list_issues', including the description, Zod input schema for start_time and end_time, and the inline handler function that invokes PylonClient.listIssues and formats the response as JSON text.
    server.tool(
    	'pylon_list_issues',
    	'List issues within a time range (max 30 days)',
    	{
    		start_time: z
    			.string()
    			.describe('Start time in RFC3339 format (e.g., 2024-01-01T00:00:00Z)'),
    		end_time: z
    			.string()
    			.describe('End time in RFC3339 format (e.g., 2024-01-31T00:00:00Z)'),
    	},
    	async ({ start_time, end_time }) => {
    		const result = await client.listIssues(start_time, end_time);
    		return {
    			content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }],
    		};
    	},
    );
  • Core handler logic in PylonClient.listIssues method: constructs query parameters for start_time and end_time, makes a GET request to the Pylon API /issues endpoint, and returns paginated list of issues.
    async listIssues(
    	startTime: string,
    	endTime: string,
    ): Promise<PaginatedResponse<Issue>> {
    	const searchParams = new URLSearchParams();
    	searchParams.set('start_time', startTime);
    	searchParams.set('end_time', endTime);
    	return this.request<PaginatedResponse<Issue>>(
    		'GET',
    		`/issues?${searchParams.toString()}`,
    	);
    }
  • TypeScript interface defining the structure of an Issue object returned by the listIssues API call.
    export interface Issue {
    	id: string;
    	title: string;
    	state: string;
    	priority?: string;
    	body_html?: string;
    	assignee_id?: string;
    	team_id?: string;
    	account_id?: string;
    	contact_id?: string;
    	requester_id?: string;
    	tags?: string[];
    	created_at?: string;
    	updated_at?: string;
    	customer_portal_visible?: boolean;
    	issue_type?: string;
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 'max 30 days' constraint, which is valuable context not in the schema. However, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (especially with no output schema).

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that communicates the core functionality and a key constraint. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a list operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what an 'issue' represents in this context, what fields are returned, pagination behavior, or error handling. The 'max 30 days' constraint is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral context needed for effective tool use.

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 fully documents both parameters with format examples. The description adds the 'max 30 days' constraint which provides additional context about the relationship between start_time and end_time, but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what's already in the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the action ('List issues') and scope ('within a time range'), which is specific and distinguishes it from other list tools like pylon_list_accounts or pylon_list_contacts. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from pylon_search_issues, which might offer more advanced filtering options.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for listing issues within a time range, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like pylon_search_issues or pylon_get_issue. The 'max 30 days' constraint offers some context but no clear when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/JustinBeckwith/pylon-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server