backlog.plan_from_contextGenerate a backlog plan from project context by delegating to the API planner endpoint. Provide context to get actionable backlog items for your project.
Delegates planning to running backlog API planner endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apply | No | ||
| source | No | ||
| context | Yes | ||
| dry_run | No | ||
| agent_id | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| session_id | No | ||
| idempotency_key | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The phrase 'Delegates planning to running backlog API planner endpoint' gives only an implementation-level behavior and does not disclose whether the tool modifies backlog data, respects the apply/dry_run flags, requires authentication, or returns any planning result.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single terse sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. It reads like an internal implementation note, not an agent-facing description that earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine what the planner will do, what side effects apply, what dry_run means, or what a successful response looks like.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The important parameters such as context, apply, dry_run, idempotency_key, and source are left completely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The title 'Plan tasks from context' clearly states the verb (plan) and resource (tasks from context), and the description reinforces this by saying planning is delegated to the backlog API planner endpoint. However, the description itself does not differentiate this tool from sibling task-related tools such as create_task or update_task.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 the many sibling alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, the relationship to create_task, or situations where dry_run vs apply should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.