Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HAOps MCP Server

HAOps MCP Server

by tbranzov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

haops_claim_feature

Check feature availability and claim it for work, marking it as in-progress. Use before starting implementation.

Instructions

Claim a feature for work. Checks availability and marks as in-progress. Use before starting implementation on a feature.

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": {
      "featureId": "<featureId>"
    },
    "name": "haops_claim_feature"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
verboseNoIf true, return the full API response instead of the compact summary (default: false)
checkOnlyNoOnly check if claimable, do not actually claim (default: false)
featureIdYesUUID of the feature to claim

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.8.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses key behaviors: checking availability and marking as in-progress. Without annotations, it adequately covers the core behavioral traits, though it could mention side effects like preventing others from claiming.

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 no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second adds context. Each sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the main action and context. However, it does not explain the return format or error conditions, which would be helpful given no output schema.

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 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters well. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what is in 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 action ('claim'), the resource ('feature'), and the effect ('marks as in-progress'). It distinguishes from sibling claim tools for other entities (issues, modules, tickets) by specifying 'feature'.

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 provides a clear usage context ('Use before starting implementation on a feature'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools