Fetch a specific Backlogs backlog bucket by ID to inspect its details for backlog planning; requires OpenProject 17.6 or newer.
Get a Backlogs backlog bucket by id. Requires OpenProject 17.6 or newer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| backlog_bucket_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| created_at | Yes | ||
| updated_at | Yes | ||
| defining_workspace | Yes | ||
| defining_workspace_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already fully declare the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by stating the OpenProject 17.6+ version requirement, which is not captured in annotations, but it does not describe error behavior or response characteristics.
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?
Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the version constraint clearly separated. Every sentence carries useful information, with no redundant wording.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and the simple one-parameter read shape is adequately framed. The main remaining gap is not linking this tool to list_backlog_buckets or explaining where to source the id.
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%, so the description must compensate, but 'by id' only restates the parameter name and does not explain format, range, or where to obtain a backlog bucket id. The schema supplies the integer type and required constraint but nothing further.
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 description gives a specific verb-resource pair: get a Backlogs backlog bucket by id. This distinguishes it from list_backlog_buckets, which is a collection-level sibling, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with that sibling.
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 states no when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It only adds a version prerequisite, leaving the agent to infer that this is for retrieving a single bucket when its id is known rather than listing buckets.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.