Backlog MCP Server

List repositories

list_repositories

Retrieve all repositories within a specified Backlog project to manage and organize your development workflow.

Instructions

List repositories in a Backlog project.

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": {
      "projectIdOrKey": "<projectIdOrKey>"
    },
    "name": "list_repositories"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectIdOrKey`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.4Apr 16, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't describe what 'List' entails—such as pagination, sorting, filtering options, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond the basic action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like response format, error handling, or usage constraints, making it inadequate for a tool that interacts with a project system.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'in a Backlog project', which implicitly relates to the 'projectIdOrKey' parameter, adding some context. However, it doesn't explain what 'projectIdOrKey' means or provide format examples, resulting in only marginal improvement over the bare schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('repositories in a Backlog project'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'list_issues' or 'list_projects' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_projects' or 'list_issues'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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

Deploy Server