Skip to main content
Glama
nulab

Backlog MCP Server

add_watching

Monitor Backlog issues by adding watches to track updates and changes using issue IDs or keys.

Instructions

Adds a new watch to an issue

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueIdOrKeyYesIssue ID or issue key (e.g., 1234 or "PROJECT-123")
noteNoOptional note for the watch

Implementation Reference

  • The async handler function that executes the core logic of the 'add_watching' tool by calling the Backlog client's postWatchingListItem method.
    handler: async ({ issueIdOrKey, note }) =>
      backlog.postWatchingListItem({
        issueIdOrKey,
        note,
      }),
  • Zod schema definition for the input parameters of the add_watching tool: issueIdOrKey (number or string) and optional note (string).
    const addWatchingSchema = buildToolSchema((t) => ({
      issueIdOrKey: z
        .union([z.number(), z.string()])
        .describe(
          t(
            'TOOL_ADD_WATCHING_ISSUE_ID_OR_KEY',
            'Issue ID or issue key (e.g., 1234 or "PROJECT-123")'
          )
        ),
      note: z
        .string()
        .describe(t('TOOL_ADD_WATCHING_NOTE', 'Optional note for the watch'))
        .optional()
        .default(''),
    }));
  • Instantiation and registration of the addWatchingTool in the 'issue' toolset group within the allTools function.
    addWatchingTool(backlog, helper),
  • Factory function that constructs the complete ToolDefinition for the 'add_watching' tool, including name, description, schemas, and handler.
    export const addWatchingTool = (
      backlog: Backlog,
      { t }: TranslationHelper
    ): ToolDefinition<
      ReturnType<typeof addWatchingSchema>,
      (typeof WatchingListItemSchema)['shape']
    > => {
      return {
        name: 'add_watching',
        description: t(
          'TOOL_ADD_WATCHING_DESCRIPTION',
          'Adds a new watch to an issue'
        ),
        schema: z.object(addWatchingSchema(t)),
        outputSchema: WatchingListItemSchema,
        handler: async ({ issueIdOrKey, note }) =>
          backlog.postWatchingListItem({
            issueIdOrKey,
            note,
          }),
      };
    };
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs an addition, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover permissions needed, side effects (e.g., notifications), rate limits, or what happens on duplicate watches. This leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Adds a new watch') and specifies the target ('to an issue'), making it efficient and easy to parse. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, side effects), usage context, and expected outcomes. Given the complexity of adding a watch (which likely involves notifications or tracking), more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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%, with clear documentation for both parameters (issueIdOrKey and note). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or usage tips. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 clearly states the action ('Adds') and target resource ('a new watch to an issue'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_issue' or 'add_issue_comment' by specifying the watch resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'update_watching' or explain what 'watching' entails in this context.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing issue access), contrast with 'delete_watching' or 'update_watching', or specify scenarios for adding watches (e.g., tracking updates). The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/nulab/backlog-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server