Backlog MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior (implied by 'offset' and 'count' but not explained), or what 'accessible projects' entails. The description is minimal and misses key operational context.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, low schema coverage), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or how parameters interact (e.g., arrays for filtering). For a tool with many filtering options, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 low (20%), with only 'sort' and 'order' parameters having descriptions. The description doesn't add meaning for the other 8 parameters (e.g., 'projectId', 'keyword', 'statusId'), failing to compensate for the schema gap. It mentions 'Backlog issues' but doesn't clarify how parameters like 'assigneeId' or 'createdUserId' relate to filtering.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('Backlog issues'), specifying they are from 'accessible projects'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_issue' (single issue) and 'list_projects' (different resource), but doesn't explicitly contrast with other issue-related tools like 'get_issue_comments'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_issue' (for single issues) or 'list_pull_requests' (for related resources). The phrase 'accessible projects' implies a scope but doesn't provide clear context for selection among siblings.

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