List points for a Taiga project. Filter by project ID to retrieve point estimates for planning and estimation.
List points. Filter by project.
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_points_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | Project ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses a read operation ('List') and the filtering capability, but it omits details like pagination, ordering, or behavior when no filter is provided. It's adequate for a simple list tool but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise, with two short sentences that are front-loaded and contain no redundant information. It earns its place without wasting words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one optional parameter), but the description doesn't clarify what the response looks like nor whether the project is required or optional. Without an output schema, some return-value context would be helpful. It is sufficient for basic selection and invocation but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'project' parameter, and the description adds semantic meaning by stating it serves as a filter, which goes beyond the schema's 'Project ID' label. This clarifies the parameter's role.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List points. Filter by project.' clearly states a verb and resource. It distinguishes this from other list tools by specifying the resource 'points,' though it doesn't define what 'points' means in the Taiga context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Filter by project' implies a usage context (listing points with optional project filtering), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.