@illodev/taiga-mcp

taiga_search

Search project items by text to find user stories, tasks, issues, and wiki pages. Specify a project ID and search query to locate relevant content across the entire project.

Instructions

Global search across a project (user stories, tasks, issues, wiki pages).

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": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "taiga_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes	Search text
`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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Global search' without detailing what fields are searched, whether results are categorized by type, or if any pagination exists. This is a notable gap for a search tool, as the return format and search semantics are unspecified.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the tool's core purpose and scope. There is no redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two well-described parameters) and lack of output schema, the description captures the essential scope (project and text) but omits any explanation of the return value or search behavior. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps about what the agent can expect as a result.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters ('Search text' and 'Project ID'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, 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's function: 'Global search across a project' and enumerates the entity types covered (user stories, tasks, issues, wiki pages). This distinguishes it from the many type-specific list tools (e.g., taiga_userstories_list) by emphasizing its cross-entity scope.

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?

Use of the tool is implied: it is for broad searching across multiple entity types within a project. However, the description does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over type-specific list tools or provide exclusions, leaving usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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

Deploy Server