Agentic Backlog MCP Server

by hakenshi

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

List projects

backlog.list_projects

Fetches current projects from the backlog API, giving agents the list needed to scope tasks and manage workflows.

Instructions

Lists projects from the running backlog API.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "backlog.list_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.3Sep 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Lists projects' but does not disclose return shape, pagination behavior, ordering, or whether the optional limit has a default. This leaves important runtime behavior undisclosed.

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff. 'From the running backlog API' is slightly redundant given the tool name, but the structure is efficiently front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin. It omits what fields the list contains, the effect of `limit`, and whether there is a default limit. The call is simple enough to attempt, but an agent lacks key contextual details about the API's response behavior.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the `limit` parameter at all. The agent must infer that 'limit' controls the number of returned projects from its name and min/max constraints. The description adds no semantic value beyond the 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Lists projects'. This clearly identifies the operation as retrieving a collection rather than a single item. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_project or identify_project, so it stops short of a 5.

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 such as get_project or list_tasks. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or a 'use this when you need all projects' framing. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and verb.

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