HAOps MCP Server

haops_list_tickets

Retrieve helpdesk support tickets for a project using optional filters by status, priority, assignee, category, or search query. Results are paginated.

Instructions

List helpdesk support tickets for a project with optional filters. Returns paginated results.

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_tickets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number (default: 1)
`limit`	No	Results per page (default: 20, max: 100)
`search`	No	Search query (searches subject and description)
`status`	No	Filter by ticket status
`category`	No	Filter by ticket category
`priority`	No	Filter by priority
`assignedTo`	No	Filter by assignee user UUID
`projectSlug`	Yes	The project slug (URL identifier)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.8.0Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It mentions pagination but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or behavior when no results are found. For a read-only listing tool, the disclosure is minimal.

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 with no redundancy. Core purpose and key behavioral trait (paginated results) are front-loaded.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It mentions pagination but does not emphasize the required projectSlug or summarize available filters. The schema fully covers parameters, so completeness is average.

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%, so the description adds little beyond stating 'optional filters'. All parameter descriptions are in the schema, and the description does not clarify parameter interactions or prerequisites.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists helpdesk support tickets for a specific project, with optional filters and pagination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like haops_create_ticket, haops_get_ticket, and haops_close_ticket.

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?

The description implies usage for viewing tickets with filters but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like haops_get_ticket or haops_search_discussion. No exclusions or when-not-to-use information is provided.

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

Deploy Server