Backlog MCP Server

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 only states the action ('Get comments') without detailing permissions, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, as critical behavioral traits are missing.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. It avoids unnecessary words, making it easy to parse quickly. However, it could be more structured by explicitly listing key parameters or constraints, but its brevity is appropriate for the basic information provided.

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 the complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, error cases, return values, and how parameters interact (e.g., 'minId' and 'maxId' for filtering). Without this context, the agent may struggle to use the tool correctly in real scenarios.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'issueIdOrKey' implicitly but doesn't clarify the meaning of optional parameters like 'minId', 'maxId', 'count', and 'order' (e.g., whether 'order' applies to comment IDs or timestamps). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to address the coverage gap.

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 states the verb ('Get') and resource ('comments for a Backlog issue'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'Backlog' refers to (a specific system or generic term) and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_pull_request_comments' or 'get_issue', leaving ambiguity about scope and differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an issue ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_issue' (which might include comments) or 'get_pull_request_comments', leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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