Agentic Backlog MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Add task note

backlog.add_task_note

Add a note to a specific backlog task via the API. Attach context, sources, or updates directly to tasks for clear tracking.

Instructions

Adds a task note through the running backlog API.

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": {
      "task_id": "<task_id>",
      "note": "<note>"
    },
    "name": "backlog.add_task_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	Yes
`source`	No
`task_id`	Yes
`agent_id`	No
`session_id`	No
`idempotency_key`	No
`apply_automation`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.3Sep 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, but it only states that a note is added. It does not mention whether automations may run, whether notes are appended or replaced, or any idempotency/audit behavior implied by the optional parameters.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is short and not bloated, but the phrase 'through the running backlog API' is low-value filler. It is concise by omission rather than by economical inclusion of useful details.

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?

For a 7-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It confirms the core operation but omits parameter semantics, return behavior, and side-effect context, especially around apply_automation and idempotency.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds nothing about the seven parameters. Field names like source, agent_id, idempotency_key, and apply_automation may be suggestive, but the description provides no meaning beyond the schema's bare types.

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 states a specific action ('Adds a task note') on a clear resource, and the verb+resource combination differentiates it from sibling tools like update_task or delete_task. It does not add much beyond the title, but it is unambiguous about what the tool does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_task, update_task_status, or create_task. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list rather than from explicit context.

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