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

backlog-mcp-server

by mcpflow
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

backlog_get_issue

Retrieve a specific issue from Backlog using its ID or key to get complete details and status.

Instructions

Performs an issue get using the Backlog Issue 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": {
      "issueIdOrKey": "<issueIdOrKey>"
    },
    "name": "backlog_get_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueIdOrKeyYesIssue ID or Issue Key

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. The description does not disclose that the tool is read-only, any authentication requirements, or other behavioral traits. As a 'get' method, it is presumably safe, but this is not explicitly stated.

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?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks useful detail. It is not overly verbose, but it could include more context without becoming bulky.

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?

Although the tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, the description omits usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, leaving gaps for an agent to select or use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides a clear description for the single parameter ('Issue ID or Issue Key'), and the description adds no additional meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score 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?

The description clearly states it performs an issue get, and the singular 'issue' distinguishes it from sibling 'backlog_get_issues' (plural). However, it does not explicitly specify the tool's scope or return value.

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 this tool versus alternatives like 'backlog_get_issues' for multiple issues or 'backlog_update_issue' for modifications. Usage context is entirely implied.

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