Retrieves the Git repositories belonging to a Backlog project, so you can list available repositories by project ID or project key.
Returns list of Git repositories 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"
+}v1.0.0Input 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 key of the project (e.g., 'PROJECT')",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "projectIdOrKey"
-]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare this is a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds only the project scoping and does not disclose pagination behavior, permission requirements, or what happens when neither projectId nor projectKey is supplied.
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 filler. Every word contributes to stating the resource and its project 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 fully described parameters and safety annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, because both parameters are optional, it does not clarify whether omitting both returns all repositories or is an error, which is relevant context for correct invocation.
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 fully documented in the schema with examples. The description's phrase 'for a project' reinforces project scoping but does not explain the relationship or choice between projectId and projectKey beyond what the schema already provides.
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 specific verb and resource: it returns a list of Git repositories scoped to a project. This is clear enough for an agent, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_git_repository tool, which likely returns a single repository.
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 tool versus get_git_repository or any other sibling. The phrase 'for a project' implies it lists repositories in a project, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.