pb_warningsRetrieve warnings and counts per rule for a Jira plan, filtering by severity level or specific rule IDs.
Warnings and counts per rule; filter by level or rule.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| level | No | ||
| cursor | No | From next_cursor. | |
| plan_id | Yes | ||
| rule_ids | No | e.g. W003_missing_estimate |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | Yes | ||
| counts | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's only extra contribution is that results include per-rule counts; it says nothing about pagination behavior despite a cursor parameter, result ordering, or volume characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single clause with no filler, which satisfies front-loading, but the brevity reads as under-specification rather than discipline — the filter hint is the only substantive content in the whole definition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, but for a four-parameter tool with a required plan_id and cursor-based pagination the description leaves the agent guessing about what plan_id scopes, whether counts are aggregated across the plan or per rule, and how to page. It is too thin for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%, and the description does explicitly indicate that filtering happens by level or by rule, mapping to the level and rule_ids properties. It adds nothing for plan_id, which is required and undocumented in both the schema and the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The phrase 'Warnings and counts per rule' identifies a specific resource and signals that aggregated counts are returned alongside warnings, which is meaningful. However, there is no verb (list? get? aggregate?) and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like pb_critical_path or pb_plan_summary, which plausibly surface related plan diagnostics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'filter by level or rule' describes capability, not when to reach for this tool. There is no mention of when this is preferable to pb_plan_summary or the other diagnostic siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.