Agentic Backlog MCP Server

by hakenshi

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

Find tasks by title

backlog.find_tasks_by_title

Locate tasks in a project by matching title keywords, returning relevant backlog items for your query.

Instructions

Finds tasks in a project by title keywords using backlog API task list.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "backlog.find_tasks_by_title"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes
`project_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.3Sep 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only lookup and mentions the task-list API, but does not disclose match semantics (partial vs exact, case sensitivity), limit behavior, pagination, or any side effects.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the verb and resource and contains no filler, redundancy, or repetition of schema 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves return shape, no-match behavior, and search semantics undefined. For a tool with three parameters, this is thinner than necessary for safe and correct invocation.

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. It effectively maps 'in a project' to project_id and 'title keywords' to query, but it says nothing about the limit parameter or value formats beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('finds') on a specific resource ('tasks in a project') with a clear selection criterion ('by title keywords'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_tasks and get_task by the title-keyword angle, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 siblings such as list_tasks, get_task, or update_task_by_title. The description implies a title-search scenario but provides no exclusions, no alternative routing, and no conditions that select this tool.

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