Tideways MCP Server

List issues

tideways_list_issues

Read-onlyIdempotent

List error, slow-SQL, or deprecation issues for a project, newest first, to find what is failing or slow and how often. One type and one status per call.

Instructions

List error, slow-SQL or deprecation issues of a project, newest occurrence first, 10 per page. Use to find what is failing or slow and how often. One type and one status per call. Lists issues seen in the default service of one environment. There is no time filter; use lastOccurred to judge recency.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No	Page number; 10 issues per page
`type`	No	error = exceptions and fatal errors, slowsql = slow SQL queries, deprecated = deprecations	error
`detail`	No	"concise" (default) returns a trimmed summary. "full" also includes the unmodified API response under "raw"; it can be very large.	concise
`status`	No	open (default) = unresolved; resolved, ignored and not_error are triaged states; "new" currently returns the same list as "open". There is no "all"; call once per status you need.	open
`project`	No	Tideways project as "project" or "organization/project". Defaults to the defaultProject that tideways_list_projects reports; call it for valid names.
`environment`	No	Environment, e.g. "production" or "staging". Defaults to the configured environment, else production; criteria.environment (traces: each trace's environment) shows which was used. When results come back, an unknown name fails with an error.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`raw`	No	Unmodified Tideways API response; present only when detail is "full".
`issues`	Yes
`hasMore`	Yes	True when the page is full; request the next page for more. The API reports no total.
`project`	Yes
`criteria`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive open-world read, and the description layers on behavior they don't cover: default-service scoping, newest-occurrence-first ordering, 10-per-page paging, absence of any time filter, and that an unknown environment name fails with an error. It also warns that detail=full can be very large.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then ordering/paging, then filtering constraints, then the recency caveat. No sentence is filler and nothing needs to be read twice.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation; the description covers the operational facts an agent needs (pagination, sort order, per-call filter limits, defaults, error on unknown environment). Nothing material is missing for a 6-param, all-optional listing tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema: one type and one status per call (no combined filtering), and that results are limited to the default service of one environment. That meaningfully clarifies how the filters interact.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource and scope: 'List error, slow-SQL or deprecation issues of a project,' plus ordering and page size. The 'issues' resource is clearly distinct from the trace/observation/performance siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

'Use to find what is failing or slow and how often' gives a clear use case, and the constraints (one type and one status per call, no time filter, use lastOccurred for recency) steer invocation well. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use this tool.

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

Deploy Server