Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
engineering-mcp

engineering-mcp

by Wesley-Gomes93
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Detalhe do ticket

work_get

Fetch a ticket's full detail, including its tasks. Use for quick lookups; for complete package (QA, time, investigation) use report_ticket.

Instructions

WORK: detalhe de um ticket com tasks. Para pacote completo (QA+tempo+investigação) use report_ticket.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID do ticket, ex: ENG-3.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation (via 'detalhe') and specifies the content (ticket with tasks), which conveys what to expect. It does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, but the name 'get' and context make it clear. The alternative to report_ticket further implies a lighter operation, adding useful behavioral context.

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 two short sentences, front-loading the core purpose and immediately providing the alternative. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple get tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It states the return scope (ticket with tasks), the alternative, and implicitly the read-only nature. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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?

The schema already documents the single parameter 'id' with an example (ENG-3), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no further parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies—the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves ticket details including tasks ('detalhe de um ticket com tasks'), and explicitly distinguishes it from report_ticket for a fuller package. The verb and resource are specific and unique among siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly names an alternative (report_ticket) and the condition for using it ('Para pacote completo... use report_ticket'), giving clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance. This leaves no ambiguity.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools