Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
contextium-mcp-server

contextium-mcp-server

Official
by contextium-io
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

list_phases

List all phases of a workflow project plan, ordered by sort order. Retrieve phase details to manage and update statuses.

Instructions

List all phases for a workflow's project plan, ordered by sort_order. Returns each phase with its ID, title, status (pending/in_progress/done/blocked), assigned agent name, and creation date. Use the phase IDs with update_phase_status to progress work.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "workflowId": "<workflowId>"
    },
    "name": "list_phases"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
workflowIdYesWorkflow ID
workspaceIdNoWorkspace ID. Defaults to your configured workspace.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description covers ordering and return fields, but lacks explicit statements about side effects (read-only), pagination, or limits. Disclosure is adequate for a list operation but not fully comprehensive.

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?

Three succinct sentences, front-loaded with the main action. No wasted words; each sentence adds value (action, returns, next step).

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?

Given low complexity, no output schema, and full parameter coverage, the description sufficiently explains what is returned and suggests a follow-up. Could mention if only active phases are shown, but not essential.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as it doesn't contradict or enhance significantly.

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?

Clearly states it lists phases for a workflow's project plan, ordered by sort_order, and specifies returned fields. Distinguishes from sibling tools like add_phase, delete_phase, update_phase_status by focusing on listing and providing IDs for progression.

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?

Explicitly guides to use phase IDs with update_phase_status, implying when to use this tool (before status updates). Does not provide when-not or comparisons to other list tools, but the hint is clear.

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