taiga-mcp

Read a project overview

get_project

Read-only

Read a Taiga project's description, members and roles, sprint count, and item statuses, types, severities, priorities, tags, and custom fields; confirm owners and exact names before filtering.

Instructions

Read what a Taiga project is made of: its description, its members with their roles, how many sprints it has, and the names its items use: the statuses of user stories, tasks, issues and epics (and which of them count as closed), issue types, severities, priorities, tags and custom fields. Use it for "who is on the project", "who is the product owner", and before filtering by a status, tag or person whose exact name you do not know yet.

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project`	Yes	Project slug as given by list_projects, e.g. "acme-billing". Not the display name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already establish the safety profile, so the description's job is to say what the read returns, and it does so in detail — including the non-obvious point that closed-vs-open statuses are identified. It says nothing about size, caching, or permission requirements for private projects, but nothing essential is hidden.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with a clear framing clause, but the second half is a long comma-chain of item vocabulary that reads as a run-on list rather than structured claims. Every listed element is relevant, yet the density hurts scanability for an agent parsing it quickly.

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

Completeness4/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it enumerates the response contents well enough for an agent to know what it will get back before calling. Minor gaps remain: no indication of whether counts are totals or per-status breakdowns, and no note on behavior for projects the caller cannot access.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema itself already disambiguates slug vs display name with an example. The description adds no syntax, format or fallback guidance for the project argument, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read what a Taiga project is made of') and then enumerates the concrete payload: description, members with roles, sprint counts, and the allowed names for statuses, issue types, severities, priorities, tags and custom fields. This is clearly distinguishable from list_projects (which supplies slugs) and get_item (single item detail) without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrases ('who is on the project', 'who is the product owner') and a genuinely useful precondition: call this before filtering by a status, tag or person whose exact name you do not know. It does not state the inverse case (e.g. use list_projects first to get the slug), so the routing is strong but not exhaustive.

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

Deploy Server