Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
backlog-mcp-server

backlog-mcp-server

by mcpflow
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

backlog_add_wiki

Create a wiki page in a Backlog project by providing project ID, page name, and content, with an option to notify via email.

Instructions

Add an wiki using the Backlog Wiki 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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "backlog_add_wiki"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesPage Name
contentYesContent
projectIdYesProject ID
mailNotifyNoTrue make to notify by Email

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. Description only says 'Add an wiki' without detailing side effects, such as whether mailNotify triggers email, or if creation overwrites existing pages. Very minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

Single sentence is concise but lacks depth. Could convey more information (e.g., required parameters or return value) without added length.

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?

Tool is simple with no output schema, but description fails to mention return behavior (e.g., created wiki object) or error conditions. Lacks sufficient context for effective use.

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 descriptions cover all 4 parameters clearly. Description adds no additional meaning beyond schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states 'Add an wiki' with verb and resource, clearly indicating wiki creation. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get/update/delete. However, could be more specific (e.g., 'Create a new wiki page').

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?

No guidance on when to use or not use this tool. Does not mention alternatives (e.g., use backlog_update_wiki for edits) or prerequisites like project existence.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools