kanban_search_ticketsFind tickets in a project by applying filters for query, column, priority, and pagination to locate specific tickets efficiently.
Search tickets in a project with optional filters and pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| columnId | No | ||
| columnName | No | ||
| priorities | No | ||
| projectKey | Yes | ||
| priorityMax | No | ||
| priorityMin | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, and the description does not disclose behavior beyond the operation name. It never confirms whether this is read-only, how pagination behaves, whether filters are combined with AND/OR semantics, or how results are ordered—leaving the agent to infer safety and behavior from the verb "search" alone.
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?
The description is a single, tightly written sentence with no filler and the main action front-loaded. It loses a point only because "optional filters" is vague where a short enumeration would have made the sentence simultaneously concise and informative.
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?
Given nine parameters, one required field, and close sibling tools, this one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. It establishes the broad intent but leaves parameter usage, pagination behavior, and filter semantics unstated.
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 0%, yet the description adds almost nothing about the nine parameters. "Optional filters" is generic and does not explain projectKey, limit, offset, query, columnId, columnName, priorities, priorityMin, or priorityMax, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's silence.
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?
The description pins down the action and resource: search tickets within a project, with optional filters and pagination. It is clear on its face, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings like kanban_find_ticket or kanban_find_column_tickets, which likely perform similar or overlapping lookup tasks.
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?
The description provides no guidance about when to use this tool instead of kanban_find_ticket or kanban_find_column_tickets. It states the basic use case but offers no exclusions, no mention of exact-match vs. broad-search tradeoffs, and no pointer to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.