Backlog MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

count_issues

Read-only

Returns the number of Backlog issues matching project, status, assignee, priority, date, and custom field filters to help track totals and workload.

Instructions

Returns count of issues

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "count_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`keyword`	No	Keyword to search for in issues
`statusId`	No	Status IDs
`projectId`	No	Project IDs
`versionId`	No	Version IDs
`assigneeId`	No	Assignee user IDs
`categoryId`	No	Category IDs
`priorityId`	No	Priority IDs
`issueTypeId`	No	Issue type IDs
`milestoneId`	No	Milestone IDs
`createdSince`	No	Created since (yyyy-MM-dd)
`createdUntil`	No	Created until (yyyy-MM-dd)
`customFields`	No	Custom field filters (text, numeric, date, or list)
`dueDateSince`	No	Due date since (yyyy-MM-dd)
`dueDateUntil`	No	Due date until (yyyy-MM-dd)
`resolutionId`	No	Resolution IDs
`updatedSince`	No	Updated since (yyyy-MM-dd)
`updatedUntil`	No	Updated until (yyyy-MM-dd)
`createdUserId`	No	Created user IDs
`parentIssueId`	No	Parent issue IDs
`startDateSince`	No	Start date since (yyyy-MM-dd)
`startDateUntil`	No	Start date until (yyyy-MM-dd)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.15.1Aug 5, 2026
Removedv0.13.1Jul 18, 2026

Changed1 schema field changedv0.11.0May 5, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / organization

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional organization name. Use list_organizations to inspect available organizations.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0Jan 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / customFields

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Custom field filters (text, numeric, date, or list)",
+  "items": {
+    "anyOf": [
+      {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "description": "Text custom field filter",
+        "properties": {
+          "id": {
+            "description": "Custom field ID (e.g., 12345)",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "type": {
+            "const": "text",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "value": {
+            "description": "Keyword to match for the custom field",
+            "minLength": 1,
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "type",
+          "id",
+          "value"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "description": "Numeric custom field filter",
+        "properties": {
+          "id": {
+            "description": "Custom field ID (e.g., 12345)",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "max": {
+            "description": "Maximum numeric value (inclusive)",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "min": {
+            "description": "Minimum numeric value (inclusive)",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "type": {
+            "const": "numeric",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "type",
+          "id"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "description": "Date custom field filter",
+        "properties": {
+          "id": {
+            "description": "Custom field ID (e.g., 12345)",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "max": {
+            "description": "End date (yyyy-MM-dd)",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "min": {
+            "description": "Start date (yyyy-MM-dd)",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": {
+            "const": "date",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "type",
+          "id"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "description": "List custom field filter",
+        "properties": {
+          "id": {
+            "description": "Custom field ID (e.g., 12345)",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "type": {
+            "const": "list",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "value": {
+            "anyOf": [
+              {
+                "type": "number"
+              },
+              {
+                "items": {
+                  "type": "number"
+                },
+                "minItems": 1,
+                "type": "array"
+              }
+            ],
+            "description": "Value ID(s) to match for list-type custom field"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "type",
+          "id",
+          "value"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedApr 26, 2025

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it says nothing about how the count is computed, whether filters combine with AND semantics, or what the response looks like (no output schema).

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single sentence with no waste, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision. There is nothing to front-load because nothing was said.

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 tool with 21 optional filter parameters and no output schema, the description leaves critical gaps: it never explains that the parameters are filters narrowing the count, nor describes the return shape or how an empty filter set behaves. This is inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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% across all 21 parameters, so the schema carries the full burden and baseline 3 applies. The description contributes no additional meaning about how filters, date ranges, or custom fields affect the count.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Returns count of issues" states a verb and resource, but it essentially restates the tool name (count_issues) and gives no scope or differentiation from the sibling get_issues. An agent can infer it counts rather than lists, but nothing more.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of get_issues, or what tradeoffs apply (e.g., use count for totals/pagination, get_issues for details). The agent must infer usage 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.

Deploy Server