ProductBrain MCP Server

list_iterations

Filter product phases or iterations by status or fetch the active phase to track planning cycles and current progress.

Instructions

List phases/iterations. current:true returns the active phase; status:active filters to active.

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": "list_iterations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	No
`current`	No
`projectId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing via the verb "List," but says nothing about permissions, pagination, result size, or ordering, and no output schema exists to fill that gap. Only the filter semantics are disclosed.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose comes first and the parameter hints follow. Slightly cryptic phrasing ("phases/iterations" without clarification) keeps it from a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It never explains projectId, the full status value domain, or what a returned iteration looks like, leaving real gaps an agent must guess around.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it explains the effect of current:true and status:active in terms the bare schema cannot. However, projectId is left completely undocumented, and status is shown with only one example value rather than its full set of accepted values.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("List phases/iterations"), so an agent immediately knows this is a read/lookup tool for iteration objects. It does not, however, differentiate itself from sibling listers such as list_projects or list_nodes, which is why it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any preconditions or exclusions. The filter hints (current/status) describe parameters, not when-call guidance, so an agent gets no routing help.

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