Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HAOps MCP Server

HAOps MCP Server

by tbranzov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

haops_get_module

Retrieve complete details for a project module including title, status, priority, notes, dates, owner, and child features.

Instructions

Get full details for a single module including title, status, priority, notes, dates, owner, and child features.

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>",
      "moduleId": "<moduleId>"
    },
    "name": "haops_get_module"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
moduleIdYesUUID of the module
projectSlugYesThe project slug (URL identifier)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.8.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, description indicates read-only behavior ('Get full details'). Lists included fields but omits additional behavioral traits like auth requirements, error states, or output format. Adequate but minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single concise sentence (15 words) front-loading the action and resource. Efficient, though could include a brief note on when to use without significant bloat.

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 no output schema, description lists return fields (title, status, etc.) which is helpful. For a simple retrieval tool, this is reasonably complete. Lacks error or existence guarantees but acceptable.

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 both parameters documented. Description does not add new meaning beyond the schema descriptions of 'UUID of the module' and 'The project slug (URL identifier)'. 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 module' with specific fields listed (title, status, priority, etc.). Distinguishes from sibling tools like list_modules (list all) and update_module (modify).

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 usage for retrieving details of a single module, but does not explicitly contrast with list_modules or other get-sibling tools. No when-not or alternative guidance provided.

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