HAOps MCP Server

haops_claim_issue

Claim an issue to work on, verifying availability and marking it in-progress before implementation.

Instructions

Claim an issue for work. Checks availability and marks as in-progress. Use before starting implementation.

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": {
      "issueId": "<issueId>"
    },
    "name": "haops_claim_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`issueId`	Yes	UUID of the issue to claim
`verbose`	No	If true, return the full API response instead of the compact summary (default: false)
`checkOnly`	No	Only check if claimable, do not actually claim (default: false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.8.0Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool checks availability and marks as in-progress, which covers the core behavioral traits. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but is adequate for a claim action.

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. Front-loaded with the primary action, then behavioral details and usage hint. Efficiently structured.

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's low complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, behavioral flow, and usage timing. Could mention return format but not critical.

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% with each parameter well-described. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Claim' and the resource 'issue for work', and further explains it checks availability and marks as in-progress. This distinguishes it from sibling claim tools for different entities (feature, module, ticket).

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 gives a clear usage context: 'Use before starting implementation.' However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other claim tools like haops_claim_feature or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the resource specificity ('issue') helps.

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

Deploy Server