Retrieve all custom fields configured for a Backlog project by project ID or key, so you can inspect available fields before creating or updating issues.
Returns list of custom fields for a project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | No | The numeric ID of the project (e.g., 12345) | |
| projectKey | No | The key of the project (e.g., 'PROJECT') |
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"
+}v1.0.0Does 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 fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating that it returns a list; it does not mention pagination, permissions, or response shape.
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?
The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the resource and scope.
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 simple read-only list tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but leaves a subtle gap: both projectId and projectKey are optional in the schema, and the description does not clarify whether one is required or how the two identifiers relate.
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 projectId and projectKey are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond implying that a project identifier is involved, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.
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?
The description gives a specific verb and resource: returns custom fields for a project. It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools like get_categories or get_priorities, although it does not explicitly name any sibling alternative.
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?
Usage is implied by the phrase 'for a project'—the agent should call this when it needs a project's custom fields. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.