Adds a watch to a Backlog issue so you can follow its updates, using an issue ID or key and an optional note.
Adds a new watch to an issue
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | Optional note for the watch | |
| issueIdOrKey | Yes | Issue ID or issue key (e.g., 1234 or "PROJECT-123") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.20.5Input schema / properties / issueIdOrKey / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "string"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / issueIdOrKey / typeAdded value: +[
+ "number",
+ "string"
+]v0.15.1v0.13.1v0.11.0Input schema / properties / organizationAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional organization name. Use list_organizations to inspect available organizations.",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing about permissions required, idempotency, what happens if the watch already exists, or what the call returns. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.
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 no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral detail other dimensions flag as missing.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin—it omits side effects, duplicate-watch behavior, and permission requirements. Only the schema's parameter documentation compensates.
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 both parameters (note, issueIdOrKey) are already documented in the schema with format examples. The description adds nothing beyond that, which meets the baseline for fully-covered schemas.
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 ('Adds') and resource ('a new watch to an issue'), which clarifies that this operates on issue watching rather than on some other object. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like update_watching or delete_watching, but those are sufficiently distinct by verb.
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 versus update_watching or get_watching_list_items, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer the entire usage context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.