swsd-mcp

swsd_list_problems

Read-onlyIdempotent

List ITIL problem records with filters and pagination to investigate recurring incidents or identify root causes. Returns compact summaries including state, priority, and assignee.

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON 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

TableJSON 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.

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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so safety behavior needs no restatement. The description adds real behavioral context: filters use SWSD repeated-key array semantics with OR within a filter, and results are compact summaries rather than full records. Disclosure of the OR semantics is genuinely non-obvious and useful.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape and sibling routing, then filter semantics and usage context. No redundancy and nothing padded.

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 need not explain return values, yet it conveniently names the summary fields and points to swsd_get_problem for detail. Between annotations, the 100%-covered schema, and this text, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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. The description exceeds that by explaining the cross-parameter semantics that the schema does not: multiple values inside one filter key are OR-ed, which governs how state/priority/state_is_not arrays combine. It does not document pagination interaction beyond what the schema states.

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)') and immediately scopes it with structured filters plus pagination. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling swsd_get_problem, which it explicitly names as the single-record alternative.

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?

Gives a concrete usage context ('when investigating recurring incidents or identifying root causes that span multiple tickets') and routes the agent to swsd_get_problem for full detail of a row. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g. when to prefer a different list tool), but the alternative is named.

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

Deploy Server