ai-git

List My Leantime Tickets

leantime_list_my_tickets

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve Leantime tickets assigned to you, newest first, to select one before creating a branch.

Instructions

List Leantime tickets assigned to the configured user (LEANTIME_USER_ID), newest first.

Use this to let the user pick a ticket before creating a branch (the aibranch workflow). Read-only.

Args:

limit (number, optional): max tickets to return (1-100, default from LEANTIME_PICK_LIMIT or 30)

Returns JSON: { count, tickets: [{ id, headline, statusLabel, projectName, dueDate, url }] }

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": "leantime_list_my_tickets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max tickets to return

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it is read-only and specifies the sorting order (newest first), but does not add extensive behavioral detail beyond the annotations.

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 concise with three sentences, a structured argument list, and a return format. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers purpose, usage context, parameter details, and return format. For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, it provides all necessary information.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema describes the 'limit' parameter with min, max, and description. The description adds the default value (from LEANTIME_PICK_LIMIT or 30) and clarifies the range, providing useful context beyond the schema.

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 it lists tickets assigned to the configured user, sorted newest first. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like leantime_get_ticket (singular) and git tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says to use this for the aibranch workflow (selecting a ticket before creating a branch). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives, but the given context is sufficient.

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

Deploy Server