Skip to main content
Glama
Backlog MCP Server

Backlog MCP Server

add_related_issue

Links an existing Backlog issue to a target issue by ID to establish a related-issue relationship for tracking dependencies or context.

Instructions

Relates an issue to another issue

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": {
      "targetIssueId": "<targetIssueId>"
    },
    "name": "add_related_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueIdNoThe numeric ID of the issue (e.g., 12345)
issueKeyNoThe key of the issue (e.g., 'PROJ-123')
targetIssueIdYesThe numeric ID of the issue to relate to (e.g., 12346)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.15.1

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation; the description adds nothing beyond that. It does not say whether adding an existing relation errors or is silently ignored, whether the relationship is directional, or what the response contains — all of which matter for a mutation with idempotentHint=false.

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. The problem is under-specification rather than verbosity, so the structure itself is efficient.

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 mutation tool with three parameters, no output schema, and a sibling that reverses the operation, the description is too thin. It omits directionality, duplicate-handling, and any indication of what the agent gets back, leaving key behavioral questions unanswered.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about issueId vs. issueKey (both optional alternatives) or why targetIssueId is the only required parameter, so it neither helps nor hurts beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Relates an issue to another issue'), but it never clarifies the directionality of the relationship — which issue is the source and which is the target. Sibling tools get_related_issues and remove_related_issue make the operation recognizable, but the description does not differentiate or explain the asymmetry.

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 about when to use this instead of get_related_issues or remove_related_issue, nor any prerequisites (e.g., permissions, valid issue states). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.