Create a new category for a Backlog project by supplying a category name and project ID or key. Use it to organize project items and keep Backlog structures consistent.
Creates a new category for a project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the category | |
| projectId | No | The numeric ID of the project (e.g., 12345) | |
| projectKey | No | The key of the project (e.g., 'PROJECT') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.20.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It signals a mutation ("Creates") but says nothing about required permissions, duplicate-name handling, failure modes, or what is returned — all material for a write operation.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.
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?
For a low-complexity creation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks any behavioral context (permissions, conflicts, project identification via projectId vs projectKey) that a mutation tool should ideally surface.
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 100%, so all three parameters (name, projectId, projectKey) are already documented in the schema with examples. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource ("Creates a new category") plus its scope ("for a project"), which is clearly interpretable. However it does not differentiate itself from the read-side sibling get_categories or mention any relationship to it.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_categories, nor any prerequisites or conditions (e.g., needing an existing project). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.