Fetch the document tree for a Backlog project using its ID or key to inspect documentation structure and hierarchy.
Gets the document tree of a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectIdOrKey | Yes | Project ID or Key |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.20.5Input schema / properties / projectIdOrKey / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / projectIdOrKey / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]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 by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that – it does not say whether the tree is full-depth or truncated, whether it includes folders vs. pages, or anything about ordering or size of the response.
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 no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than being genuinely tight, since nothing substantive follows the core statement.
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 hierarchical retrieval tool, the description never explains what the tree contains (folders, documents, nesting depth), so an agent cannot predict the shape or scale of the result. With no output schema available, the description should carry more of that burden than it does.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Project ID or Key'), so the schema carries the semantics and baseline 3 applies. The description does not add any detail about accepted ID formats or whether a key works as well as an ID.
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 ('Gets') and a specific resource ('the document tree of a project'), which is meaningfully distinct from the sibling get_documents (list) and get_document (single item). It does not explicitly name those siblings or clarify what 'tree' means structurally, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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 use this versus get_documents, get_document, or get_wiki_pages, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer that this returns a hierarchical view while the other tools return flat/single results.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.