HAOps MCP Server

haops_list_updates

List available updates for a project, showing type, version, status, and date. Check for new MCP server versions, protocol changes, test suites, or onboarding templates.

Instructions

List available updates for a project. Shows update type, version, status, and date. Use to check for new MCP server versions, protocol changes, test suites, or onboarding templates.

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_updates"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	No	Filter by status (optional)
`updateType`	No	Filter by update type (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?

No annotations provided, but the description implies a read-only operation. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as performance impact or required permissions, which are not critical for a simple list tool but could be improved.

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-loaded with the core purpose, no unnecessary words.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequately complete, covering what it lists and when to use it. Missing details like pagination or sorting are not critical for this tool.

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%, and the description mentions the update type parameter by listing example values, but it doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions and enum definitions.

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 available updates for a project, specifying fields (update type, version, status, date) and examples (MCP server versions, protocol changes, test suites, onboarding templates). It distinguishes from sibling list tools by focusing on updates.

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 explicitly says 'Use to check for new MCP server versions, protocol changes, test suites, or onboarding templates', providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use or alternative tools.

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

Deploy Server