backlog-mcp

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description does not explain these behaviors. It mentions returning data but fails to disclose potential destructive effects (e.g., if retrieval alters state) or open-world implications (e.g., handling unknown story IDs). The description adds return format details, but with annotations present, it should provide more context to clarify the hints, resulting in a low score for insufficient behavioral disclosure beyond 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and efficiently details the return structure in the second. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the basic retrieval purpose and return format adequately. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, and with annotations like destructiveHint=true unexplained, it's incomplete for a tool with potential side effects. This results in a minimal viable score, as it meets basic needs but has clear gaps in 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting the 'story_id' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get the full markdown content and metadata') and resource ('for a single story'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_stories' (which retrieves multiple) or 'create_story' (which creates rather than retrieves). It explicitly mentions the return structure, reinforcing its retrieval function.

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 implies usage by specifying it retrieves 'a single story' and mentions the 'story_id' parameter, suggesting it's for fetching details of an existing story. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_stories' for summaries or 'get_index_summary' for broader overviews, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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