taiga-mcp

Search a project

search

Read-only

Find words across all Taiga project items—user stories, tasks, issues, epics, and wiki pages—when the item type is unknown, returning match counts and top results per type.

Instructions

Search one Taiga project for words, in everything at once: user stories, tasks, issues, epics and wiki pages. Answers with how many of each kind match and the first few of each. Use it when the user describes something without saying what kind of item it is ("anything about the bank sandbox", "where did we write down the release steps"). An item must contain every word; a word also matches the beginning of a longer one. When you know the kind, or need more filters or all the matches, use that kind's list tool with search.

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>",
      "words": "<words>"
    },
    "name": "search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Most matches to show of each kind (default 5, at most 20).
`words`	Yes	The words to look for, e.g. "bank sandbox".
`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

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the response shape (counts per kind plus the first few of each) and the matching rules (every word must be present, and a word matches the beginning of longer words). Those matching semantics materially affect how an agent should phrase the `words` argument and interpret empty results.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what is searched before the usage and matching rules; the example queries are short and illustrative. No filler or restatement of the name or title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does: result counts by kind plus a truncated sample, with the truncation tied to `limit`. Combined with the matching rules and the routing to list tools for exhaustive results, nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning for `words` by defining conjunction ('every word') and prefix matching, which the schema does not state. It also reinforces that `limit` is per-kind ('the first few of each'), though that is already in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search one Taiga project for words") plus the exact scope of what is searched: user stories, tasks, issues, epics, wiki pages. An agent can distinguish this from the sibling list_* tools purely from the description.

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 the selecting condition explicitly ("when the user describes something without saying what kind of item it is") with two concrete example queries, and states the negative case plus the alternative: "When you know the kind, or need more filters or all the matches, use that kind's list tool with `search`." Both when and when-not are covered.

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

Deploy Server