bticket_list_ticketsGet all tickets visible to the authenticated user, including own and shared board tickets, to track work items.
Lista tickets visíveis ao usuário autenticado (GET /api/tickets). Inclui tickets próprios e de quadros compartilhados, conforme a API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the result set is limited to tickets visible to the authenticated user and includes both own and shared-board tickets. No contradiction with annotations.
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 compact and front-loaded with the verb and resource. The phrase 'conforme a API' adds little actionable value, but overall the text is efficient and well-structured.
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?
For a simple, parameterless, read-only list operation, the description covers the endpoint, scope, and inclusion criteria sufficiently. There is no output schema, so return-shape or pagination details could be added, but the tool's simplicity and strong annotations make this a minor gap.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The relevant semantic content is the scope of the returned ticket set, which the description does cover.
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 clearly states the operation ('Lista' tickets), the resource ('tickets'), and the scope ('visíveis ao usuário autenticado', including own and shared board tickets). It is broadly distinguishable from sibling list tools by resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with potentially overlapping tools like bticket_list_my_open_cards.
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?
There is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over the sibling list tools, nor any exclusions or conditions. The description only restates what the tool does; usage context is left entirely to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.