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

@illodev/taiga-mcp

by illodev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

taiga_epics_list

Retrieve epics from Taiga projects. Filter by project ID, assigned user, or closed status to find specific items.

Instructions

List epics. 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_epics_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectNoProject ID
assigned_toNoAssigned user ID
status__is_closedNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 implies a read-only listing operation, but does not disclose pagination, ordering, authentication needs, or the effect of leaving the project filter empty. It adds minimal behavioral detail beyond what the name/schema already imply.

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, front-loaded sentences. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits return value structure, pagination or ordering behavior, and whether filters are optional or combinable. It is minimal but leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 67%, with 'project' and 'assigned_to' already documented in the input schema. The description's 'Filter by project' adds little beyond the schema, and it does not clarify the semantics of 'status__is_closed' or how multiple filters combine. The existing schema descriptions prevent a lower score.

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 'List epics. Filter by project.' uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('epics'), which distinguishes it from epic create/update/get tools. It does not explicitly differentiate from related list-like tools such as taiga_epics_filters_data or taiga_epics_related_userstories_list, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states the action and a filter, with no mention of when to prefer list over get, no exclusions, and no alternative tool references.

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