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

@illodev/taiga-mcp

by illodev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

taiga_userstory_custom_attributes_list

List custom attribute definitions for user stories in a Taiga project by providing a project ID to filter results.

Instructions

List custom attribute definitions for userstory. 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_userstory_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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral information. It communicates that the tool lists definitions and can be filtered by project, but it does not disclose whether project is required, what fields the definitions contain, or whether pagination applies. The 'List' verb implies a safe read operation, which is some behavioral signal.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the purpose and filter behavior are immediately clear. Every word contributes.

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 one-parameter list tool without annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential purpose but leaves uncertainty about the return structure (attribute definitions fields) and how it relates to the sibling values_get tool. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 fully documents the only parameter (project: 'Project ID'), and the description adds the semantic that it is a filter. However, this is minimal additional value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states 'List custom attribute definitions for userstory' – a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like taiga_userstory_custom_attributes_values_get (values) and taiga_epic_custom_attributes_list (different entity).

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?

It includes 'Filter by project' as a usage hint, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as the values get/update tools or the epic/task/issue variants. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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