Retrieve requirements filtered by priority, status, or project, ordered by importance for focused review.
List requirements, optionally filtered by priority, status and project. Most important first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | ||
| priority | No | ||
| projectId | No | Id of the project to link this item to |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the sort order ('Most important first'), which is useful, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, pagination, return shape, or permission requirements for a list operation.
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 compact sentences with no wasted words. The tool's action is front-loaded, followed immediately by optional filters and ordering.
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 simple list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic action, filters, and sort order. However, it leaves out return behavior, pagination, and explicit read-only reassurance, which would be helpful given the lack of structured annotations.
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?
Schema description coverage is low at 33%, so the description should compensate. It names all three parameters as optional filters, which adds semantic value beyond the raw schema, but it does not explain allowed values, defaults, or the distinction between project ID and project name beyond what the schema already implies.
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 and resource ('List requirements') plus optional filter fields and sort order. It clearly identifies the resource, but does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools such as search_items or list_stories.
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 phrase 'optionally filtered by priority, status and project' implies the main usage scenario, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus search_items or other list tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.