Skip to main content
Glama
nulab

Backlog MCP Server

get_categories

Retrieve available categories for a Backlog project to organize and classify issues effectively. Provide either project ID or key to fetch category data.

Instructions

Returns list of categories for a project

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdNoThe numeric ID of the project (e.g., 12345)
projectKeyNoThe numeric ID of the project (e.g., 12345)

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that resolves the project ID or key using resolveIdOrKey and calls backlog.getCategories to retrieve the list of categories for the project.
    handler: async ({ projectId, projectKey }) => {
      const result = resolveIdOrKey(
        'project',
        { id: projectId, key: projectKey },
        t
      );
      if (!result.ok) {
        throw result.error;
      }
      return backlog.getCategories(result.value);
    },
  • Defines the Zod input schema for the tool, accepting optional projectId (number) or projectKey (string).
    const getCategoriesSchema = buildToolSchema((t) => ({
      projectId: z
        .number()
        .optional()
        .describe(
          t(
            'TOOL_GET_CATEGORIES_PROJECT_ID',
            'The numeric ID of the project (e.g., 12345)'
          )
        ),
      projectKey: z
        .string()
        .optional()
        .describe(
          t(
            'TOOL_GET_CATEGORIES_PROJECT_ID',
            "The key of the project (e.g., 'PROJECT')"
          )
        ),
    }));
  • Registers the getCategoriesTool within the 'issue' toolset group by calling the factory function with backlog and translation helper.
    getCategoriesTool(backlog, helper),
  • Imports the getCategoriesTool factory from its module.
    import { getCategoriesTool } from './getCategories.js';
  • Specifies the output schema as CategorySchema for validation of the returned categories list.
    outputSchema: CategorySchema,
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Returns'), which is helpful, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what happens when invalid parameters are provided. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read operation with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally provide more context about the return format (e.g., what fields categories include, whether it's a flat list or hierarchical). The description meets basic requirements but leaves room for improvement.

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%, providing complete documentation for both parameters (projectId and projectKey). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 action ('Returns list of') and resource ('categories for a project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_issues or get_project by focusing specifically on categories. However, it doesn't specify whether this returns all categories or filtered ones, keeping it from a perfect score.

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. With siblings like get_project (which might include categories) and get_issue_types (which might be related), there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate or what prerequisites exist for its use.

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