swsd-mcp

swsd_list_incident_tasks

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve sub-tasks for a specific SWSD incident to view their state, assignee, and due date.

Instructions

List sub-tasks on a SWSD incident. Returns id, name, description, state ("New" / "In Progress" / "Completed"), completed boolean, position, assignee, due_at, created_at, updated_at. Use swsd_create_incident_task to add a sub-task and swsd_update_task_state to mark one complete. Sub-tasks also appear inline in swsd_get_incident detail_level: "long".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`incident_id`	Yes	SWSD incident reference. Accepts either the internal id (>=7 digits, e.g. 180457930) or the human-facing number (<=6 digits, e.g. 60310). The handler auto-detects via digit count.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	Yes
`tasks`	Yes
`incident_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv3.0.0Oct 4, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

First observedv2.1.0May 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description's help. The description adds the useful fact that sub-tasks are also reachable through swsd_get_incident long mode, but no auth, pagination, or ordering behavior is disclosed beyond that.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three tightly written sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then alternatives. The middle sentence enumerates eight returned fields, which largely duplicates the output schema and is the only mildly wasteful element.

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?

With an output schema, full annotation coverage, and one fully documented parameter, the description only needs to establish purpose and routing, which it does. The field enumeration is redundant rather than additive, so the definition is complete but slightly over-specified in the wrong place.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the id-vs-number auto-detection rule, so the schema carries the full semantic load. The description adds nothing about incident_id; baseline 3 applies when the schema is complete and the description is silent on parameters.

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 sub-tasks on a SWSD incident') with explicit scope, and names the sibling tools that create/complete those same sub-tasks, so an agent can place it precisely in the task-related cluster. The scope of 'sub-tasks belonging to one incident' separates it from the general incident listers.

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?

It routes the agent: swsd_create_incident_task for adding, swsd_update_task_state for completing, and it discloses that the same data is available inline via swsd_get_incident with detail_level "long" — a real alternative-path hint. There is no explicit condition saying when to prefer one route over the other, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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

Deploy Server