Backlog MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states it 'gets' details, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. However, it's overly concise to the point of under-specification, lacking details that would make it more helpful for the agent.

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 tool has 3 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context about what the tool does, how to use it properly, or what to expect in return, making it inadequate for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about parameter meanings, formats, or examples. It doesn't explain what 'projectIdOrKey', 'repoIdOrName', or 'pullRequestNumber' represent, leaving the agent to guess based on the schema structure alone.

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 tool 'Get Backlog pull request details' which clarifies it retrieves information about pull requests, but it's vague about what specific details are included. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_pull_request_comments' or 'list_pull_requests', leaving ambiguity about scope.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or differentiate it from similar tools like 'get_pull_request_comments' or 'list_pull_requests', leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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