Tech Debt MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_issues_by_category

Retrieve all technical debt issues filtered to a specific category for a project path, enabling targeted review of dependency, security, testing, or other debt areas.

Instructions

Get all issues of a specific category.

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": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "category": "<category>"
    },
    "name": "get_issues_by_category"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Absolute path to the project root directory
`category`	Yes	Category to filter by

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.1Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only lookup, but nothing is said about whether the tool performs analysis against the given path (potentially expensive), whether results are paginated or truncated, or what happens with an invalid path — all material for a tool that takes a project root.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a tool with no annotations.

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?

The tool is simple (two fully documented parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), so the description is roughly proportionate. Still, it omits any indication of result shape or cost, which an agent needs when choosing between this and the sibling issue-listing tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'path' and the eight-value 'category' enum are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the notion of filtering by category, which the schema already conveys; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('issues') with a scoping qualifier ('of a specific category'). The purpose is unambiguous, but the description never contrasts itself with the closely related get_issues_by_severity sibling, so the agent must infer that category vs. severity is the distinguishing axis.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as get_issues_by_severity or get_debt_summary. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'of a specific category', leaving the agent to reason about routing on its own.

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

Deploy Server