Add a watch to a Backlog issue to receive notifications and track updates. Specify the issue ID or key and an optional note for the watch.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description does not contradict it. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations — it does not say that the watch is per-current-user, what happens if the issue is already watched (non-idempotent implies duplication), or whether the owner gets notifications.
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 clause with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. It is well structured, though its brevity stems partly from under-specification rather than from disciplined editing.
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?
With only two parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the definition is nearly minimal. It still omits what a "watch" is in this product (a subscription to an issue's notifications), who the watcher is, and what a successful response looks like — gaps that matter for a non-idempotent create operation.
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%, with both issueIdOrKey and note documented in the schema (including ID/key format and the note's optionality), so this is the baseline case. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, which is acceptable but not additive.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Adds a new watch") plus the scope ("to an issue"), so an agent can tell this is a watch-creation action rather than a generic write. It does not differentiate itself from the very close siblings update_watching, delete_watching, or add_issue, which would be needed for a 5.
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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite three sibling tools operating on the same watch resource (get_watching_list_items, update_watching, delete_watching). The agent is left to infer that this is the create path and nothing else.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.