Retrieve backlog items from a PLAN.md file as JSON using an optional plan path. Access the project's backlog directly for task tracking without editing the file.
Backlog section items (JSON).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan_path | No | Optional path to PLAN.md (relative to cwd or absolute). Default: walk up from cwd to nearest PLAN.md. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the result is JSON; it does not mention side effects, failure modes, path resolution behavior, or whether it only reads data. This is minimal but not entirely absent.
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 extremely concise and front-loads the key concept 'backlog section items'. It contains no filler words, though it is arguably too terse to be fully self-sufficient.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only a one-line description, the definition is incomplete. It does not explain what the returned items look like, how the optional plan_path behaves, or what distinguishes this from similar tools. The agent is left with too much uncertainty.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the only parameter, plan_path, is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already does the heavy lifting.
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 names a specific resource ('backlog section items') and its return format ('JSON'), which is enough to distinguish it from iteration- and plan-focused sibling tools. It lacks an explicit verb, but the tool name 'get_backlog' supplies the action, so the intended operation is clear.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_iteration, get_current_iteration, or add_to_backlog. No conditions, exclusions, or selection criteria are provided, so the agent must infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.