Creates a new wiki page in a Backlog project with a specified name and content, optionally sending notification emails.
Creates a new wiki page
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the wiki page | |
| content | Yes | Content of the wiki page | |
| projectId | Yes | Project ID | |
| mailNotify | No | Whether to send notification emails (default: false) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.1v0.13.1v0.11.0Input schema / properties / organizationAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional organization name. Use list_organizations to inspect available organizations.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that—no note on email notification side effects (the mailNotify param implies one) or whether duplicates are created.
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 short sentence with zero waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise—there is no front-loaded scope or key constraint to anchor the call.
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 write tool with no output schema, the description says nothing about the returned page, whether the email notification is triggered by default, or what happens on name collision. Annotations carry the safety profile, but the behavioral context is thin.
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 all four parameters including mailNotify are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning, which meets the baseline 3 for high-coverage 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?
States a specific verb ('Creates') and resource ('wiki page'), so the action is identifiable. But it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like update_wiki or add_document, and reads close to a restatement of the tool name.
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?
No indication of when to use this versus update_wiki, get_wiki, or add_document, and no prerequisites (project scope, required permissions) are mentioned. The agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.