backlog-mcp

backlog_get_attachments

List all attachments on a Backlog issue by issue key or ID. Returns attachment ID, filename, size, uploader, and upload date.

Instructions

List all attachments on a Backlog issue.

Returns a table with attachment ID, filename, size, uploader, and upload date. Use the attachment ID with backlog_download_attachment to download a specific file.

INPUT:

issueIdOrKey (required): issue key e.g. "BLG-123" or numeric ID e.g. "12345"

EXAMPLE: { issueIdOrKey: "BLG-123" }

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": {
      "issueIdOrKey": "<issueIdOrKey>"
    },
    "name": "backlog_get_attachments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`issueIdOrKey`	Yes	Issue key or numeric ID. Examples: "BLG-123", "12345". Use the attachment ID from this result with backlog_download_attachment.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.6Jun 14, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description is clearly for a read-only list operation, but since no annotations are provided, it carries the full burden. It does not explicitly declare read-only behavior or any other constraints.

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 well-structured with clear sections, though it redundantly restates schema information. It is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, usage connection to a sibling tool, parameter details, and an example. It is complete.

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?

The input schema already has thorough documentation for the parameter (examples and usage), so the description adds little beyond that. Schema description coverage is 100%.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'attachments on a Backlog issue', and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool backlog_download_attachment by directing users to use that tool for downloading.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides context by mentioning that the attachment ID can be used with backlog_download_attachment, guiding users on next steps. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to other siblings.

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

Deploy Server