Skip to main content
Glama
nulab

Backlog MCP Server

add_wiki

Create a new wiki page in Backlog projects by specifying project ID, page name, and content, with optional email notifications.

Instructions

Creates a new wiki page

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdYesProject ID
nameYesName of the wiki page
contentYesContent of the wiki page
mailNotifyNoWhether to send notification emails (default: false)

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function that implements the add_wiki tool logic by calling the Backlog API's postWiki method with projectId, name, content, and optional mailNotify.
    handler: async ({ projectId, name, content, mailNotify }) =>
      backlog.postWiki({
        projectId,
        name,
        content,
        mailNotify,
      }),
  • Input schema definition for the add_wiki tool using Zod, including projectId, name, content, and optional mailNotify.
    const addWikiSchema = buildToolSchema((t) => ({
      projectId: z.number().describe(t('TOOL_ADD_WIKI_PROJECT_ID', 'Project ID')),
      name: z.string().describe(t('TOOL_ADD_WIKI_NAME', 'Name of the wiki page')),
      content: z
        .string()
        .describe(t('TOOL_ADD_WIKI_CONTENT', 'Content of the wiki page')),
      mailNotify: z
        .boolean()
        .optional()
        .describe(
          t(
            'TOOL_ADD_WIKI_MAIL_NOTIFY',
            'Whether to send notification emails (default: false)'
          )
        ),
    }));
  • Registration of the add_wiki tool within the 'wiki' toolset group in the allTools export.
      tools: [
        getWikiPagesTool(backlog, helper),
        getWikisCountTool(backlog, helper),
        getWikiTool(backlog, helper),
        addWikiTool(backlog, helper),
        updateWikiTool(backlog, helper),
      ],
    },
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'creates' implies a write operation, the description doesn't mention permission requirements, whether this operation is idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward creation tool and gets directly to the point.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what the return value might be, error conditions, or important behavioral aspects like whether the operation requires specific permissions. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is incomplete.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete, but provides no extra value.

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 verb ('creates') and resource ('new wiki page'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_wiki' by specifying creation rather than modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'add_' tools that create different resources.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or how it differs from similar creation tools like 'add_issue' or 'add_project'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name 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