Retrieves all available work package statuses so you can identify valid status values for filtering or updating OpenProject work packages; statuses are read-only.
List all available work package statuses.
Read-only: statuses cannot be created or modified via the OpenProject API (Community Edition); configure them in the web admin UI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.7Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev0.2.3Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "$defs": {
- "StatusSummary": {
- "properties": {
- "color": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "title": "Color"
- },
- "id": {
- "title": "Id",
- "type": "integer"
- },
- "is_closed": {
- "title": "Is Closed",
- "type": "boolean"
- },
- "is_default": {
- "title": "Is Default",
- "type": "boolean"
- },
- "name": {
- "title": "Name",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "position": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "title": "Position"
- },
- "url": {
- "title": "Url",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "id",
- "name",
- "is_default",
- "is_closed",
- "color",
- "position",
- "url"
- ],
- "title": "StatusSummary",
- "type": "object"
- }
- },
- "properties": {
- "count": {
- "title": "Count",
- "type": "integer"
- },
- "results": {
- "items": {
- "$ref": "#/$defs/StatusSummary"
- },
- "title": "Results",
- "type": "array"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "count",
- "results"
- ],
- "title": "StatusListResult",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by explaining *why* it is read-only: statuses are not creatable or modifiable through the API in Community Edition and must be configured in the admin UI, which prevents an agent from hunting for a create_status tool.
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 short sentences, zero waste: the operation first, then the read-only constraint. Front-loaded and easy to parse.
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?
For a zero-parameter enumeration tool this is essentially complete, and the read-only constraint closes the obvious gap. A brief note on what a status record contains (identifier, name, color) would make it fully self-sufficient, but with no output schema and trivial complexity the omission is minor.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so parameter semantics are a non-issue and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty 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 (list) and resource (work package statuses) with the scope 'all available'. It is clearly distinct from mutating siblings, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the singular get_status sibling.
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 description implies usage (enumerating statuses for filtering/selection) and redirects the write case to the web admin UI, which is genuine guidance. However it never states when to use this versus get_status or why an agent would pick one over the other.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.