DragApp MCP Server

filter_threads

Filter email threads by assignee, tags, or column to narrow down specific threads within a board. Use when you know exact filter values for targeted results.

Instructions

Filter email threads by criteria such as assignee, tags, or column. More targeted than search — use this when you know specific filter values.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "boardId": "<boardId>",
      "columnId": "<columnId>"
    },
    "name": "filter_threads"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`boardId`	Yes	The board ID to filter within
`tagList`	No	Filter by shared label IDs (as strings). Use list_labels to get available label IDs.
`columnId`	Yes	The column ID to filter within (required)
`assignees`	No	Filter by assignee user IDs (as strings). Use "-1" for unassigned threads. Get user IDs from list_teams or list_board_members.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.5Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It implies a read operation (filtering) but does not disclose any side effects, performance considerations, or return format. Adequate but not detailed.

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?

Two sentences with essential information, front-loaded with the primary purpose. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, and parameter context. It could mention the return format, but overall it is reasonably complete.

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%, yet the description adds value by explaining how to obtain values for tagList (use list_labels) and assignees (use '-1' for unassigned, get IDs from list_teams or list_board_members). This goes beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool filters email threads by assignee, tags, or column. It also distinguishes itself from search_threads by stating it's 'more targeted' and for use when specific filter values are known.

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?

The description explicitly says 'More targeted than search — use this when you know specific filter values,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like search_threads.

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