Escalate Anything

by alexgaoth

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

List issue types

list_issues

Read-only

Lists issue IDs available for building a complaint playbook, with an optional sector filter to target relevant cases.

Instructions

Issue ids that a playbook can be built for, optionally only one sector.

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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sector`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.2Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: the result is issue *ids* (not full issue records) restricted to those a playbook can be built for. It stops short of covering ordering, completeness, or whether the default spans all sectors.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short sentence with no filler, and the core constraint (playbook-eligible issue ids) is front-loaded before the optional filter. The fragment style is terse to the point of being clipped, but nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness3/5

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 with a single optional parameter the definition covers the minimum. However, for a discovery tool the missing default behavior (all sectors when `sector` is omitted) and the absence of sector values leave real gaps.

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 single `sector` parameter, and it does partially: it establishes the parameter is optional and narrows results to one sector. It gives no valid sector values or matching semantics, so an agent still cannot construct a correct non-null value from the definition alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Issue ids that a playbook can be built for" identifies the resource (issue ids) and constrains it to playbook-eligible ones, but it is a noun fragment with no verb and never says whether this lists, searches, or enumerates. An agent can infer it is a listing of eligible issue ids, but the phrasing leaves the action and scope boundary implicit.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The only usage signal is "optionally only one sector," which describes the filter rather than when to call this tool. There is no mention of when-not to use it, no relation to sibling tools like get_playbook, and no statement of what an unfiltered call returns.

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