HAOps MCP Server

haops_list_modules

List modules in a HAOps project with optional filters for status, priority, and owner. Retrieve module IDs, titles, and details to discover module UUIDs.

Instructions

List modules in a HAOps project with optional filters. Returns module ID, title, status, priority, owner, and feature count. Use this to discover module UUIDs.

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_list_modules"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number (default: 1)
`limit`	No	Results per page (default: 25, max: 100)
`status`	No	Filter by status (optional)
`ownerId`	No	Filter by owner UUID (optional)
`priority`	No	Filter by priority (optional)
`projectSlug`	Yes	The project slug (URL identifier)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.8.0Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('List') and describes return fields, but lacks details on pagination behavior (e.g., total count), ordering, error conditions, or potential side effects. The description is minimally adequate.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the action and key details, with no unnecessary words. The use case sentence adds value efficiently.

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 core functionality and output, but omits pagination specifics (though page/limit are in schema) and prerequisites (e.g., project must exist). For a list tool with moderate complexity and good schema coverage, it is mostly complete.

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 well-described parameters. The description adds no further parameter-specific details beyond the schema, merely summarizing the output fields. The value added is marginal.

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 tool lists modules with optional filters and specifies the returned fields (module ID, title, status, priority, owner, feature count). It also provides a specific use case ('discover module UUIDs'), distinguishing it clearly from sibling list tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('Use this to discover module UUIDs'), but does not mention when not to use it or compare it with alternatives like haops_get_module for single modules.

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

Deploy Server