Skip to main content
Glama

list_issues

Retrieve recently updated work items by issue type, such as defects, requirements, tasks, epics, or all. Default query returns up to 20 items per project.

Instructions

查询我最近更新的工作项,可以根据其中IssueType查询,默认查询limit为20条

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueTypeNo事项类型,可选值为: ALL - 全部事项 DEFECT - 缺陷 REQUIREMENT - 需求 MISSION - 任务 EPIC - 史诗
limitNo事项数量,默认为20条
projectNameYes项目名称

Implementation Reference

  • Main handler function that implements the core logic for listing issues: validates input, initializes connection, calls API, and returns formatted JSON response.
    export async function listIssues(args: { 
      projectName: string;
      issueType?: string;
      limit?: string;
    }, config: CodingDevOpsConfig) {
      if (!args.projectName) {
        throw new McpError(ErrorCode.InvalidParams, 'projectName03 is required');
      }
    
      CodingConnection.initialize(config);
      const connection = CodingConnection.getInstance();
      
      const issues = await connection.listIssues({
        projectName: args.projectName,
        issueType: args.issueType,
        limit: args.limit
      });
    
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: JSON.stringify(issues, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • Input schema and metadata definition for the 'list_issues' tool, used for validation and listing available tools.
    {
      name: 'list_issues',
      description: '查询我最近更新的工作项,可以根据其中IssueType查询,默认查询limit为20条',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          projectName: {
            type: 'string',
            description: '项目名称,注意是项目的 name 不是 displayName,建议先通过 list_projects 查看项目名称',
          },
          issueType: {
            type: 'string',
            description: '事项类型,可选值为: ALL - 全部事项 DEFECT - 缺陷 REQUIREMENT - 需求 MISSION - 任务 EPIC - 史诗',
          },
          limit: {
            type: 'string',
            description: '事项数量,默认为20条',
          }
        },
        required: ['projectName'],
      }
  • src/index.ts:118-119 (registration)
    MCP server switch case that registers and dispatches calls to the 'list_issues' tool handler.
    case 'list_issues':
      result = await tools.issue.listIssues(request.params.arguments);
  • Wrapper handler in issueTools.initialize that passes config to the core listIssues function.
    listIssues: (args: { 
      projectName: string;
      issueType?: string;
      limit?: string;
    }) => listIssues(args, config),
  • Supporting method in CodingConnection that makes the actual API request to list issues.
    public async listIssues(params: {
      projectName: string;
      issueType?: string;
      limit?: string;
      offset?: string;
      sortKey?: string;
      sortValue?: string;
    }): Promise<CodingIssue[]> {
      const requestBody = {
        Action: 'DescribeIssueList',
        ProjectName: params.projectName,
        IssueType: params.issueType || 'ALL',
        Limit: params.limit || '20',
        Offset: params.offset || '0',
        SortKey: params.sortKey || 'UPDATED_AT',
        SortValue: params.sortValue || 'DESC'
      };
    
      const response = await axios.post<CodingIssuesResponse>(
        CodingConnection.config.apiUrl,
        requestBody,
        {
          headers: {
            'Authorization': `token ${CodingConnection.config.token}`,
            'Content-Type': 'application/json',
            'Accept': 'application/json'
          }
        }
      );
    
      return response.data.Response.IssueList;
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('查询' means query) and mentions a default limit, but fails to detail critical aspects such as authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what 'recently updated' means (e.g., time frame). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with multiple parameters.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first clause. It uses two sentences efficiently to cover filtering and the default limit, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from parameters.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., authentication, error handling), output format, and comprehensive usage guidelines. While the schema covers parameters, the overall context for effective tool invocation is insufficient.

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 the schema already documents all parameters (issueType, limit, projectName) with descriptions and required status. The description adds marginal value by reiterating the default limit and filtering capability, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or contextual meaning beyond what's in the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '查询我最近更新的工作项' (query my recently updated work items). It specifies the verb (query) and resource (recently updated work items), making the function understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'list_projects' or 'create_issue', which would require a 5.

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?

The description provides minimal guidance: it mentions filtering by IssueType and a default limit of 20, but offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_projects' or 'create_issue'. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts, leaving usage ambiguous.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/yupengfei1209/coding_devops_mcp_server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server