iterations-get-storiesRetrieve all stories from a specific iteration using its ID. Optionally include story descriptions for more detail.
Get all stories in an iteration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iterationPublicId | Yes | Iteration ID | |
| includeStoryDescriptions | No | Include story descriptions (slower) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.1Input schema / properties / includeStoryDescriptions / descriptionPrevious value: -"Indicate whether story descriptions should be included. Including descriptions may take longer and will increase the size of the response."New value: +"Include story descriptions (slower)"Input schema / properties / iterationPublicId / descriptionPrevious value: -"The public ID of the iteration"New value: +"Iteration ID"v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description only restates the basic action without adding behavioral context like typical response structure, pagination, or performance implications of the includeStoryDescriptions parameter.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence. However, it is somewhat under-specified for a tool with optional parameters and no output schema, but it earns points for being front-loaded and free of fluff.
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?
Given the lack of an output schema and the presence of an optional parameter that could affect performance, the description is too minimal. It does not hint at the return format or when to use the optional parameter, leaving the agent with incomplete context.
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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description 'Get all stories in an iteration' clearly specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'projects-get-stories' and 'iterations-get-active' by focusing on stories within a specific iteration.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use 'iterations-get-stories' vs. 'iterations-search' or 'projects-get-stories'. No exclusion criteria or context for usage is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.