List epics with optional product, theme or state filter
List epics with optional product, theme or state filter
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default: 20) | |
| state | No | Filter by state | |
| theme | No | Filter by theme sys_id (scrum_theme) | |
| product | No | Filter by product sys_id (cmdb_model) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.1Input schema / properties / productAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Filter by product sys_id (cmdb_model)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / projectRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Filter by project sys_id",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / themeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Filter by theme sys_id (scrum_theme)",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description doesn't contradict them. Beyond filter scoping, the description adds nothing about result ordering, pagination behavior, or what happens when no filter matches — modest added value given the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is possibly too terse given the tool has four parameters, but every word earns its place and the core purpose leads.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list tool with complete schema documentation and full annotations, the definition gives the agent enough to call it correctly. No output schema exists, yet the description doesn't mention the return shape or pagination, which is the only remaining gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%: all four parameters, including the limit default of 20 and the sys_id types for theme (scrum_theme) and product (cmdb_model), are already documented in the schema. The description only names three of the filters, adding no semantics beyond what the schema states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('epics') plus the available filter dimensions, so the agent immediately knows this is a read-only enumeration of epics. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like list_stories or list_scrum_tasks, but the resource name is unambiguous enough to separate them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The word 'optional' implies the tool can be called with no filters, which is useful. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., list_stories for a hierarchy walk) and no stated prerequisites such as needing a product or theme sys_id to scope meaningfully.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.