Retrieves all categories for a specified Backlog project using its project ID or key, helping you list categories for issue organization and selection.
Returns list of categories for a project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | No | The numeric ID of the project (e.g., 12345) | |
| projectKey | No | The numeric ID of the project (e.g., 12345) |
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"
+}v1.0.0Input schema / properties / projectIdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The numeric ID of the project (e.g., 12345)",
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / projectIdOrKeyRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Project ID or project key",
- "type": [
- "string",
- "number"
- ]
-}Input schema / properties / projectKeyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The numeric ID of the project (e.g., 12345)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "projectIdOrKey"
-]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 only the project scoping, and says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or what happens when neither identifier is provided.
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 zero filler. It is efficient rather than padded; the only criticism is that brevity here reflects thin content rather than tight 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?
For a read-only, zero-required-parameter list tool with fully described parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It still omits return shape, ordering, and how the two optional identifiers interact, which an agent would need to call it confidently.
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 are documented and the baseline is 3. The description does not clarify the relationship between projectId and projectKey (nor the apparent copy-paste error in projectKey's schema text), leaving that ambiguity unaddressed.
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 concrete verb and resource ("Returns list of categories") and scopes it to a project, which is clear enough to distinguish from add_category. It stops short of differentiating itself from other read-only list siblings like get_priorities or get_custom_fields, so a 4 rather than 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 guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives, no mention that add_category is the write counterpart, and no note on prerequisites or whether projectId or projectKey must be supplied. The agent must infer all of this.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.