Retrieve a paginated list of documents from one or more Backlog projects using project IDs and an optional offset.
Gets a list of documents in a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offset | No | Offset for pagination (default is 0) | |
| projectIds | Yes | Project ID List |
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 covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic operation: it does not mention pagination behavior, ordering, what a document represents, or whether results are scoped or limited.
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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is arguably too terse, but it is not padded or poorly structured.
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 full schema descriptions and annotations, the essentials are mostly covered. However, the description does not clarify how this differs from get_document_tree or get_document, nor does it mention pagination or multi-project behavior, leaving gaps for an agent choosing between similar tools.
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 the schema already documents both offset and projectIds. The description's phrase 'in a project' loosely corresponds to projectIds but does not add syntax, array/multi-project semantics, or pagination guidance beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Gets a list of documents.' However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like get_document_tree or get_document, and 'in a project' is slightly misleading because the required parameter is projectIds, an array supporting multiple projects.
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?
It provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_document_tree or get_document. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues to help an agent choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.