Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HAOps MCP Server

HAOps MCP Server

by tbranzov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

haops_get_issue

Retrieve complete details for a specific issue, including its title, type, status, priority, notes, points, dates, assignee, and parent feature.

Instructions

Get full details for a single issue including title, type, status, priority, notes, points, dates, assignee, and parent 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": {
      "projectSlug": "<projectSlug>",
      "issueId": "<issueId>"
    },
    "name": "haops_get_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueIdYesUUID of the issue
projectSlugYesThe project slug (URL identifier)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.8.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. Lists returned fields but omits behavioral details like permissions, rate limits, error handling, or caching. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, efficient. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple get operation with two parameters and no output schema, description adequately covers purpose and returned fields. Could mention error cases or output format, but not necessary.

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 clear parameter descriptions. Description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond listing returned fields. Baseline 3.

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?

Clearly states 'Get full details for a single issue' and lists specific fields. Distinguishes from siblings like 'haops_list_issues' (list) and 'haops_get_feature' (different resource).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implies use for full details of one issue, but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance. No mention of alternatives or when to use other tools like list_issues for summary data.

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