QC Database MCP Server

list_itp_line_items

Retrieve inspection and test plan line items from the current project. Optionally filter by package, completion status, or acceptance status.

Instructions

List ITP (Inspection & Test Plan) line items in the current project - the required inspection/test steps. Optionally filter by package id, and by completed / accepted (true or false).

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": "list_itp_line_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`package`	No
`completed`	No
`accepted`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must handle behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only listing operation, but does not mention pagination, ordering, or that it does not modify data. Adequate for a simple list tool, but could be more thorough.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with purpose. Very concise with no wasted words. Could be more structured but efficient.

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?

Given the simplicity (3 optional params, output schema exists), the description covers the essential purpose and filters. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly, though it could mention scope more explicitly.

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 has 3 parameters with 0% coverage. Description adds meaning by explaining package as 'package id' and completed/accepted as boolean filters. However, it does not explain default values or null meaning. Adds value beyond schema but not extensively.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Clearly describes the tool as listing ITP line items in the current project, with optional filters. The verb 'list' and resource 'ITP line items' are specific, and the description distinguishes it from sibling tools like mark_itp_complete or list_lists.

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?

States when to use (to list inspection/test steps, with optional filtering) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives. The context of 'current project' is implied but not defined.

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