swsd-mcp

swsd_list_problems

Read-onlyIdempotent

List ITIL problem records from SolarWinds Service Desk with filters for state, priority, assignee, requester, or text query and pagination. Use to investigate recurring incidents and identify root causes across related 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.

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.

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

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: repeated-key array filter semantics (OR-ed values), compact summary output vs. full detail, and pagination support, all of which inform how an agent will interpret 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?

Three tight sentences with no filler: the first states the core action and result format, the second points to the sibling for full detail, and the third explains filter semantics and the intended use case. All content earns its place.

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?

The description is complete for a read-only list tool. It covers the result summary shape, the fallback for deeper detail, filter behavior, and the appropriate investigative context. The output schema and annotations handle the remaining structured details, and no required parameters exist.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the SWSD repeated-key array semantics for filters, which is not present in the schema and is essential for constructing correct multi-value array 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List SWSD problems (ITIL problem records)', which clearly distinguishes this from incident-focused siblings like swsd_list_incidents. It also names swsd_get_problem as the complementary detail-retrieval tool, so an agent can immediately tell what this tool does and what it does not do.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when investigating recurring incidents or identifying root causes that span multiple tickets.' It also gives a clear alternative by directing the caller to swsd_get_problem for full details of a single row, providing both a use case and a routing rule.

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

Install Server