Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
taiga-mcp

taiga-mcp

by kiet0807
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

List Taiga projects

list_projects
Read-only

List Taiga projects the signed-in user belongs to, returning each name and slug. Call it first when a project is named loosely or its slug is unknown, since other tools require the slug.

Instructions

List the Taiga projects the signed-in user is a member of, with the name and slug of each. Call this first when the user names a project loosely or you do not know its slug: every other tool takes the slug as 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": "list_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description usefully adds the membership restriction on results and the concrete fields returned. It stops short of stating whether results are paginated or how large the list can grow, which is the only remaining behavioral gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what it returns, followed by when to call it and the reason. No redundant restatement of the title and no filler.

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?

For a no-argument list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, return fields, and its role in the workflow, which is everything an agent needs to call it correctly. Absence of pagination detail is negligible for a per-user project list.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is no per-parameter meaning to convey, and the baseline applies. The description implicitly confirms no input is needed by framing the tool as a bootstrap lookup.

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 (list Taiga projects) plus the scope (only projects the signed-in user is a member of) and the returned fields (name and slug). This clearly separates it from get_project, which retrieves a single project, and from the domain-scoped listers like list_issues.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit trigger: call this first when the user names a project loosely or its slug is unknown. It also explains why — every other tool takes the slug as `project` — which makes the dependency ordering unambiguous rather than inferred.

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