Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HAOps MCP Server

HAOps MCP Server

by tbranzov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

haops_get_structured_view

Retrieves a structured Module→Feature→Issue hierarchy from a project, with optional filters by type, assignee, or status, pre-organized for display.

Instructions

Get a structured (nested) view of the project work hierarchy with optional filters. Returns Module→Feature→Issue tree, pre-organized for display.

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>"
    },
    "name": "haops_get_structured_view"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoEntity type filter (default: all)
statusNoFilter by status value, or "all" (default: all)
assigneeNoFilter by assignee UUID, or "all" (default: all)
projectSlugYesThe project slug (URL identifier)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.8.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. Only states the return structure, missing details like read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or empty result behavior.

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 efficient sentences, no filler. Front-loaded with core purpose and structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Describes output as 'Module→Feature→Issue tree', but lacks details on pagination, sorting, depth, or response format. Without output schema, more completeness needed.

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?

All 4 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds the context of optional filters and tree output, but no new semantics beyond 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?

Clearly states 'Get a structured (nested) view of the project work hierarchy' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from flat list siblings by mentioning 'Module→Feature→Issue tree'.

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 display purposes with 'pre-organized for display', but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives guidance. Among many list tools, a note about preferring this over multiple list calls would elevate it.

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