Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Backlog MCP Server

Backlog MCP Server

by nulab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

add_document

Creates a new document in a specified Backlog project, with optional title, content, emoji, and parent placement.

Instructions

Adds a new document to the specified 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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>"
    },
    "name": "add_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emojiNoEmoji for the document
titleNoTitle of the document
addLastNoAdd to the end of the list
contentNoContent of the document
parentIdNoParent document ID
projectIdYesProject ID

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 declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it doesn't mention ordering behavior (addLast), parent/child nesting implications, or what happens if required content is omitted.

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 filler. Its brevity is appropriate in form, though the space saved is not spent on any useful detail.

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?

For a 6-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description should explain document hierarchy behavior (parentId vs projectId) and what is returned on success. None of that is present, leaving the agent to infer nontrivial semantics from parameter names alone.

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 all six parameters including projectId, parentId, and addLast are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no supplementary meaning about how parameters interact (e.g., parentId vs projectId placement). Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb ('Adds') and resource ('document') scoped to a project, so an agent knows the operation. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like add_wiki or add_issue, which also create content inside a project.

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 add_wiki or add_issue, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and the surrounding sibling list.

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