Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@illodev/taiga-mcp

@illodev/taiga-mcp

by illodev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

taiga_epic_custom_attributes_list

Retrieve custom attribute definitions for epics, optionally filtered by project ID. Use to inspect available fields for epic management in Taiga.

Instructions

List custom attribute definitions for epic. Filter by project.

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": "taiga_epic_custom_attributes_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectNoProject ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the scoping behavior of filtering by project, which is useful, but it does not mention pagination, output format, or whether the project parameter is optional. The 'List' verb implies a read-only operation, but no explicit safety or behavior details are given.

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 exceptionally concise, with two short sentences that immediately convey the action and the optional filter. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a tool with low complexity, one parameter, and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explicitly state whether the project filter is required, nor does it describe the response shape, but the core purpose is clear enough for basic invocation.

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?

The schema already describes the single 'project' parameter as 'Project ID' with 100% coverage. The description's 'Filter by project' adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool lists 'custom attribute definitions for epic,' specifying both the verb and the resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like taiga_epic_custom_attributes_values_get (which deals with values) and list tools for other entities.

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 'Filter by project' implies a use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The intended usage is only implied by the tool's name and the description's scope.

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