Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Backlog MCP Server

Backlog MCP Server

by nulab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

add_category

Creates a new category for a Backlog project, letting you group related issues under a custom label for better organization.

Instructions

Creates a new category for a project

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "add_category"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe name of the category
projectIdNoThe numeric ID of the project (e.g., 12345)
projectKeyNoThe key of the project (e.g., 'PROJECT')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.20.5

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds only 'for a project' and says nothing an agent needs for a non-idempotent create: duplicate-name behavior, permission requirements, or what happens on failure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient but borders on under-specified rather than tight.

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?

Only 'name' is required per the schema, yet the description implies project scoping is inherent to the operation, leaving ambiguity about whether projectId/projectKey are mandatory and which to use (ID vs key). For a create tool with no output schema, that ambiguity should be resolved in the description.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents name, projectId, and projectKey. The phrase 'for a project' gestures at the project scoping parameters but adds no syntax, format, or requiredness guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

A clear verb+resource statement: creates a category, scoped to a project. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_categories or explain how categories relate to issues/projects, so it stops short of a 5.

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 indication of when to create a category versus reading existing ones with get_categories, and no prerequisites or preconditions (e.g., does the category already exist?). The agent must infer usage entirely.

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