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

backlog-mcp-server

by mcpflow
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

backlog_update_wiki

Update a wiki page on Backlog by providing the page ID, new name, content, and optional email notification.

Instructions

Update 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": {
      "wikiId": "<wikiId>"
    },
    "name": "backlog_update_wiki"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoPage Name
wikiIdYesWiki page ID
contentNoContent
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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. However, it only repeats the name and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, idempotency, or error handling.

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 very short and to the point, but it lacks substance. It is concise but could include more useful information without being too long.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the effect of the update, what is returned, or how it relates to sibling wiki tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter is described adequately in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the input 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 clearly states the action 'Update' and the resource 'a wiki'. It is a specific verb+resource, but it does not distinguish from sibling tools like backlog_add_wiki or backlog_delete_wiki.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or when not to use it, despite the availability of sibling tools for different operations on wikis.

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