@illodev/taiga-mcp

taiga_issues_get_by_ref

Fetch a Taiga issue by its ref number and project ID to access its full details directly.

Instructions

Get an issue by ref and project.

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": {
      "ref": "<ref>",
      "project": "<project>"
    },
    "name": "taiga_issues_get_by_ref"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ref`	Yes	Issue ref number
`project`	Yes	Project ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states 'Get an issue', which is a read operation, but it does not describe what data is returned, whether it fails for invalid refs, or any authentication requirements. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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 an eight-word sentence that immediately conveys the operation and its key scope. There is no filler, redundant phrasing, or unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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 simple getter with two well-specified parameters, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not describe the return value (e.g., 'returns the full issue object') or any failure behavior, and there is no output schema to compensate. However, the operation is straightforward, so a minimal description is somewhat acceptable.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters: 'Issue ref number' for ref and 'Project ID' for project. The description 'by ref and project' reinforces that these are lookup keys but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline 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 'Get an issue by ref and project' clearly states the verb (get), the resource (issue), and the key identifiers (ref and project). This distinguishes it from taiga_issues_get, which presumably fetches by internal ID, and from list/create/update/delete operations.

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 description implies usage is appropriate when you have an issue's ref and project ID, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like taiga_issues_get (which likely uses the issue ID). No exclusions or 'when not to use' guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from naming.

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

Deploy Server