Skip to main content
Glama
fleagne

Backlog MCP Server

by fleagne

backlog_get_issue

Retrieve specific issue details using the Backlog Issue API by providing the issue ID or key. Integrates with the Backlog MCP Server for streamlined project management operations.

Instructions

Performs an issue get using the Backlog Issue API.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueIdOrKeyYesIssue ID or Issue Key

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'backlog_get_issue' tool. Validates input using IssueParamsSchema, calls issueService.getIssue(), formats the response as text or error.
    const handleGetIssue: ToolHandler = async (args) => {
    	try {
    		try {
    			const validatedParams = IssueParamsSchema.parse(args);
    
    			const text = await issueService.getIssue(validatedParams);
    
    			return {
    				content: [
    					{
    						type: "text",
    						text: `Issue details for ${validatedParams.issueIdOrKey}:\n${text}`,
    					},
    				],
    				isError: false,
    			};
    		} catch (validationError) {
    			throw new ValidationError(
    				`Invalid parameters: ${validationError instanceof Error ? validationError.message : String(validationError)}`,
    			);
    		}
    	} catch (error) {
    		return {
    			content: [
    				{
    					type: "text",
    					text: `Error: ${formatError(error)}`,
    				},
    			],
    			isError: true,
    		};
    	}
    };
  • Registration of tool handlers, mapping 'backlog_get_issue' to handleGetIssue function.
    export const toolHandlers: Record<ToolName, ToolHandler> = {
    	backlog_get_projects: handleGetProjects,
    	backlog_get_project: handleGetProject,
    	backlog_get_issues: handleGetIssues,
    	backlog_get_issue: handleGetIssue,
    	backlog_add_issue: handleAddIssue,
    	backlog_update_issue: handleUpdateIssue,
    	backlog_delete_issue: handleDeleteIssue,
    	backlog_get_wikis: handleGetWikis,
    	backlog_get_wiki: handleGetWiki,
    	backlog_add_wiki: handleAddWiki,
    	backlog_update_wiki: handleUpdateWiki,
    	backlog_delete_wiki: handleDeleteWiki,
    };
  • MCP tool definition for 'backlog_get_issue', including description and input schema generated from IssueParamsSchema.
    export const ISSUE_TOOL: Tool = createTool(
    	"backlog_get_issue",
    	"Performs an issue get using the Backlog Issue API.",
    	IssueParamsSchema,
    );
  • Zod schema used for input validation of the tool parameters.
    export const IssueParamsSchema = z.object({
    	issueIdOrKey: z.string().describe("Issue ID or Issue Key"),
    });
  • Helper service method that delegates to backlogAPI.getIssue and wraps errors.
    async getIssue(params: IssueParams): Promise<string> {
    	try {
    		return await backlogAPI.getIssue(params);
    	} catch (error) {
    		throw new Error(
    			`Failed to get issue: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)}`,
    		);
    	}
    }
Behavior2/5

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 but offers minimal insight. It states the action is a 'get' (implying read-only), but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves operationally, making it inadequate for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

The description is concise with a single sentence, 'Performs an issue get using the Backlog Issue API,' which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it could be more structured by explicitly stating the purpose upfront (e.g., 'Retrieves details for a single issue'). It earns a 4 for efficiency but loses a point for not optimizing clarity in its brevity.

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 the tool's complexity (a read operation with no output schema and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., issue fields, metadata), potential side effects, or how it fits into the broader API context. With no annotations to fill gaps, the description should provide more context about behavior and output, which it fails to do adequately.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the 'issueIdOrKey' parameter as 'Issue ID or Issue Key.' The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as examples or format details. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation effectively without extra value from the description.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the tool 'Performs an issue get using the Backlog Issue API,' which indicates it retrieves issue data, but it's vague about what specific information is fetched (e.g., details, status, comments) and doesn't differentiate it from sibling tools like 'backlog_get_issues' (which likely lists multiple issues). It uses a generic verb 'get' without specifying scope or output, making it minimally adequate but unclear in comparison.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an issue ID), contrast with 'backlog_get_issues' for bulk retrieval, or specify use cases like fetching a single issue's details. The description lacks any context for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/fleagne/backlog-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server