@drmaxbdc/productboard-mcp

get_note_v1

Fetches a Productboard note by UUID for backward compatibility during V1-to-V2 migration; use get_note for current behavior.

Instructions

DEPRECATED: use get_note instead. Kept as an alias for backwards compatibility during the V1→V2 migration. Now calls v2 GET /notes/{id} (same as get_note). V1-only fields no longer available: followers[], embedded comments[], features[].importance. The v1 displayUrl is now exposed as links.html on the returned note. This tool will be removed in the next major release (v2.0.0-cleanup, after the V1 sunset on 2026-07-08).

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_note_v1"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Note UUID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.1Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses that the tool now delegates to the v2 endpoint, lists the V1-only fields that are no longer returned (followers[], embedded comments[], features[].importance), documents a field rename (displayUrl → links.html), and gives a deprecation/removal horizon. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent would otherwise have to discover by failing.

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?

Information is front-loaded with the DEPRECATED marker and the recommended replacement, which is the right ordering. It is fairly dense with migration detail, but nearly every clause (field removals, field rename, removal date) is actionable for an agent and not filler.

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 deprecated alias of a single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it maps to, what responses omitted, how fields map, and when it disappears. Nothing material is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter (id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it as a Note UUID. The description adds nothing about the id parameter itself, only the endpoint path shape, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific operation (retrieve a note by id) and immediately frames it as an alias for the sibling get_note, so an agent can tell exactly what it does and how it differs. It also names the underlying endpoint (v2 GET /notes/{id}), which reinforces the resource.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly says the tool is DEPRECATED and directs the agent to use get_note instead, and explains the only reason to keep using it (backwards compatibility during V1→V2 migration). It also states the removal timeline, giving an unambiguous when/when-not condition.

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