Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Archicad-MCP

Archicad-MCP

by alesdev88
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

List issues

list_issues
Read-only

Fetch all issues from the open Archicad project, including their IDs. Requires the Tapir add-on for QA tracking.

Instructions

List the issues in the open project, with their ids (requires the Tapir add-on).

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_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
portNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'List' wording is consistent. It adds useful context beyond annotations by mentioning the Tapir add-on dependency and specifying that ids are returned. No contradictions.

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?

A single succinct sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key dependency in a parenthetical. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant phrasing.

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?

For a simple read-only list operation, the description covers the operation scope and prerequisite, and the presence of an output schema covers return details. The only notable gap is the unexplained optional port parameter, but its optionality and default null reduce the practical impact.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The only parameter, port, has zero schema description coverage and the description never explicitly explains it. The Tapir add-on reference obliquely suggests it relates to the add-on connection, but the agent is left to infer the actual meaning of port. The description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the issues in the open project', and even notes that ids are included. It is clearly distinguished from sibling mutation tools like create_issue, add_issue_comment, and export_issues_bcf because it is a read-only listing operation.

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?

The description gives clear context: this lists issues in the open project and requires the Tapir add-on. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope and prerequisite are clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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