Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ClickUp API MCP

ClickUp API MCP

by alexfdez1010
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

clickup_search_operations

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search the offline ClickUp API catalog by keyword, tag, or version to find operations; returns paginated summaries.

Instructions

Search the offline API catalog by words, tag, or version. Returns paginated summaries.

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": "clickup_search_operations"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagNo
limitNo
offsetNo
searchNo
versionNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds the material fact that this queries an 'offline API catalog' rather than the live API, and that results are paginated. That is genuine context beyond the structured hints; only the pagination mechanics (limit cap, offset semantics) remain unstated.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the return shape appended. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The main remaining gap is parameter-level detail (version enum values, limit bounds) for a tool with 0% schema description coverage.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It names three of five parameters conceptually (search words, tag, version) and 'paginated' hints at limit/offset, but it never mentions the v2/v3 enum domain or the 1-100 limit bound available in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (the offline API catalog) plus the facets accepted (words, tag, version). Siblings clickup_get_operation/clickup_read/clickup_write are not referenced, so the agent must infer the search-vs-fetch distinction, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'search the catalog by words, tag, or version' — an agent can infer this is a discovery entry point — but no when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative routing (e.g., vs clickup_get_operation) is given.

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