Skip to main content
Glama

get-issue-types

Retrieve all issue types available in an Autodesk Construction Cloud project to categorize and manage project issues effectively.

Instructions

List all issue types in an Autodesk Construction Cloud project

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdYes

Implementation Reference

  • Zod schema defining the input parameter 'projectId' for the get-issue-types tool.
    const schema = {
        projectId: z.string().nonempty()
    };
  • Handler function implementing the tool logic: fetches access token, initializes IssuesClient, processes projectId, retrieves issue types, and returns them as text content.
    callback: async ({ projectId }) => {
        // TODO: add pagination support
        const accessToken = await getAccessToken(["data:read"]);
        const issuesClient = new IssuesClient();
        projectId = projectId.replace("b.", ""); // the projectId should not contain the "b." prefix
        const issueTypes = await issuesClient.getIssuesTypes(projectId, { accessToken });
        if (!issueTypes.results) {
            throw new Error("No issue types found");
        }
        return {
            content: issueTypes.results.map((issue) => ({ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(issue) }))
        };
    }
  • src/server.ts:12-14 (registration)
    Registration of all tools (imported as * from './tools/index.js', which includes get-issue-types) to the MCP server using server.tool().
    for (const tool of Object.values(tools)) {
        server.tool(tool.title, tool.description, tool.schema, tool.callback);
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation, implying it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this or address other behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns a list of issue types. It doesn't explain what an 'issue type' entails, the format of the return data, or any limitations (e.g., pagination). For a read operation with no structured support, more context is needed.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'projectId', and the description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond implying it's needed for the Autodesk Construction Cloud project context. This meets the baseline of 3 since the description doesn't compensate for the schema gap but doesn't actively mislead about parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('List all') and resource ('issue types in an Autodesk Construction Cloud project'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-issues' or 'get-issue-root-causes' beyond the specific resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-issues' or 'get-issue-root-causes'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/petrbroz/aps-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server