mcp-server-rt

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_lifecycles

Read-only

List all lifecycle definitions, optionally filtered by ticket or asset type, to understand the statuses and transitions used in each queue.

Instructions

List all available lifecycles. Each lifecycle defines the statuses and transitions for tickets in queues that use it.

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_lifecycles"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`type`	No	Filter by lifecycle type (default: all)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.3.0Sep 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals this is a safe read operation, and the description's 'List' verb is consistent with that. The description adds some domain context about what lifecycles define, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or authorization requirements.

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 with the action front-loaded and no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema fields. The second sentence adds useful domain context without padding.

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 tool with one optional, well-documented parameter, the description is nearly sufficient. It is slightly incomplete because it does not mention the asset lifecycle type reflected in the schema, and there is no output schema to clarify the exact return shape.

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 100%, so the optional 'type' parameter is fully documented with enum values and a default note. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the operation: 'List all available lifecycles' with a specific resource and scope, distinguishing it from get_lifecycle and lifecycle mutation tools. However, the explanatory sentence says lifecycles are for tickets in queues, while the input schema's type enum also includes 'asset', making the scope slightly narrower than the tool actually supports.

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?

The phrase 'List all available lifecycles' implies the tool is for full enumeration rather than retrieving a single lifecycle, but it does not explicitly mention get_lifecycle as the alternative for specific lifecycle lookups. There is no clear when-not-to-use guidance, so usage guidance is only implied.

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