Retrieve paginated issues for a specific project to review and manage project risks or blockers, using limit and skip controls and returning totals for navigation.
Get issues for a project with pagination. Returns { items, total, limit, skip, hasMore }. Default limit: 50, max: 200.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | Number of issues to skip (for pagination) | |
| limit | No | Max issues to return (default 50, max 200) | |
| projectId | Yes | The project ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the return envelope ({ items, total, limit, skip, hasMore }) and the default/max page size, which is genuine behavioral context. It stops short of stating read-only semantics explicitly or any auth/failure behavior.
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?
Two tight sentences; purpose first, then return shape and paging limits. No filler.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the response envelope and its paging fields, which is the key missing piece for an agent. The remaining gap is sibling routing, not call correctness.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the description's 'Default limit: 50, max: 200' merely restates what the limit parameter description already says. No added meaning for skip or projectId beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get issues for a project') with pagination scope, which is unambiguous on its own. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like get_issue (single issue) or search_tasks/get_project_risks, so the agent must infer the boundary.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the phrase 'with pagination' hints at large result sets but doesn't say to prefer get_issue for a single issue or search_* for filtered lookups. The agent gets no routing signal among the many sibling list/get tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.