swsd-mcp

swsd_list_problems

Read-onlyIdempotent

List SWSD ITIL problem records with filters for state, priority, requester, assignee, and text search. Use it to investigate recurring incidents and identify root causes across multiple tickets.

Instructions

List SWSD problems (ITIL problem records) with structured filters and pagination. Returns compact summaries (id, name, state, priority, category, requester, assignee, updated_at) — call swsd_get_problem for the full detail of any one row. Filters use SWSD repeated-key array semantics (multiple values within a filter are OR-ed). Use this when investigating recurring incidents or identifying root causes that span multiple tickets.

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": "swsd_list_problems"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number (1-indexed).
`query`	No	Free-text search on name + description.
`state`	No	Filter to problems matching ANY of these states (e.g. ["New", "In Progress"]).
`per_page`	No	Results per page (1-100). SWSD caps at 100.
`priority`	No	Filter to problems matching ANY of these priorities (e.g. ["High", "Medium"]).
`state_is_not`	No	Negative state filter: exclude problems in any of these states (e.g. ["Resolved", "Closed"]).
`assignee_email`	No	Filter to problems assigned to this email.
`requester_email`	No	Filter to problems requested by this email.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`problems`	Yes
`pagination`	Yes
`applied_filters`	Yes	Echo of the filters applied to this query — empty object if none. Use this to reason about whether the result count reflects your filters or the tenant total.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv3.3.0Nov 5, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / pagination / properties / matched_total

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "Total matching records, or null when unknown. After local filtering, known only when all candidate pages were scanned from page 1. Independent of display caps."
+}

changedOutput schema / properties / pagination / properties / total_scope / description

Previous value: -"Whether `total` reflects the filtered-set size, the tenant-wide size, or is unknown. 'filtered' = filter was applied AND total is present; 'tenant' = no filter AND total is present; 'unknown' = total absent."New value: +"Scope of the upstream `total`: 'upstream' = candidates before local filtering; 'filtered' = server-filtered count with no local filtering; 'tenant' = unfiltered count; 'unknown' = total absent. Sorting and display options are not filters."

changedOutput schema / properties / pagination / properties / total_scope / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "filtered",
-  "tenant",
-  "unknown"
-]New value: +[
+  "filtered",
+  "tenant",
+  "unknown",
+  "upstream"
+]

Changed4 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"

changedInput schema / properties / assignee_email / pattern

Previous value: -"^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"New value: +"^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"

changedInput schema / properties / requester_email / pattern

Previous value: -"^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"New value: +"^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"

changedOutput schema / $schema

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

Changed9 schema fields changedv2.3.1Aug 22, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / assignee_email / maxLength
```
Added value: +320
```
- addedInput schema / properties / priority / items / maxLength
```
Added value: +500
```
- addedInput schema / properties / priority / maxItems
```
Added value: +100
```
- addedInput schema / properties / query / maxLength
```
Added value: +2000
```
- addedInput schema / properties / requester_email / maxLength
```
Added value: +320
```
- addedInput schema / properties / state / items / maxLength
```
Added value: +500
```
- addedInput schema / properties / state / maxItems
```
Added value: +100
```
- addedInput schema / properties / state_is_not / items / maxLength
```
Added value: +500
```
- addedInput schema / properties / state_is_not / maxItems
```
Added value: +100
```
First observedv2.1.0May 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds the result shape (compact summaries rather than full records) and the repeated-key array/OR semantics of filters. It does not discuss total-count or how to page through large result sets, which is a minor gap for a list tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by return shape and filter semantics, with no filler. The field list in the second sentence is slightly verbose but functional.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values beyond the summary hint, and it covers filters, pagination, and the escalation path to swsd_get_problem. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 each filter already documents its ANY-of semantics, so the description's OR-ed repeated-key note largely restates the schema at a general level. It adds only cross-cutting framing, not per-parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 SWSD problems (ITIL problem records)') with scope ('structured filters and pagination'), and explicitly names the sibling swsd_get_problem for single-row detail, so the agent can separate this from related tools without opening a schema.

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 routing rule: use this for investigating recurring incidents or root causes spanning multiple tickets, and call swsd_get_problem for full detail of any one row. Both the when-to-use and the alternative are present.

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

Deploy Server