Skip to main content
Glama
duckAsteroid

brindley

by duckAsteroid
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list

Read-only

List initiatives (a.k.a. tickets or issues) across the repo, or in one collection, optionally filtered.

Instructions

List initiatives (a.k.a. tickets or issues) across the repo, or in one collection, optionally filtered.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagNo
typeNo
ownerNo
readyNo
whereNoScoring dimensions to filter by: permitted values per dimension, e.g. { "priority": ["critical", "high"] }. An unset value counts as the dimension's default, if it has one.
statusNo
order_byNoScoring dimensions to order by, e.g. ["priority", "impact"]: each by its declared order (first value first), later ones breaking ties, then by number. Unset values use the default, else sort last.
collectionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.6.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / order_by
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Scoring dimensions to order by, e.g. [\"priority\", \"impact\"]: each by its declared order (first value first), later ones breaking ties, then by number. Unset values use the default, else sort last.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / where
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {
+    "items": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "number"
+      ]
+    },
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  "description": "Scoring dimensions to filter by: permitted values per dimension, e.g. { \"priority\": [\"critical\", \"high\"] }. An unset value counts as the dimension's default, if it has one.",
+  "propertyNames": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds the scoping context (whole repo vs a single collection) and that filtering is optional, which is useful, but it omits return shape, pagination, and default ordering behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, and the parenthetical clarifying 'initiatives = tickets or issues' is genuinely useful. It is compact but arguably too terse given the schema's complexity.

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

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 8-parameter list tool with no output schema and only 25% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. An agent gets no sense of what the result set contains, how results are ordered by default, or how the various filters interact.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 25% (just `where` and `order_by` are documented); tag, type, owner, ready, status, and collection have no schema descriptions. The description mentions only `collection` and generic filtering, so it fails to compensate for the six undocumented parameters.

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 (List) and resource (initiatives), and usefully disambiguates the domain term by equating it with 'tickets or issues'. It also indicates scope (across the repo or one collection). However, it does not distinguish itself from list-like siblings such as `ready`, `questions`, or `report`.

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 cue is 'optionally filtered', which says nothing about when to choose this tool over `get`, `ready`, `report`, or `questions`. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing guidance despite a crowded sibling set.

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