Retrieve details for a specific Git repository in Backlog by repository ID or name, with project ID or key to identify its location.
Returns information about a specific Git repository
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repoId | No | Repository ID | |
| repoName | No | Repository name | |
| 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 / properties / repoIdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Repository ID",
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / repoIdOrNameRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Repository ID or name",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / repoNameAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Repository name",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "projectIdOrKey",
- "repoIdOrName"
-]Does 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 nothing beyond that—no note on permission requirements, errors when the repo id/name doesn't resolve, or what fields come back.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the missing guidance rather than deliberate compression.
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?
With four optional parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description should at least say which identifier selects the repository and roughly what is returned. Instead it leaves both the identification semantics and the response shape entirely to inference.
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 all four parameters (repoId, repoName, projectId, projectKey) are documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. Notably all four are optional, and the description does not clarify whether one identifier is required or which is preferred, adding no meaning beyond the schema.
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+resource: 'Returns information about a specific Git repository.' The singular 'a specific' implicitly contrasts with the sibling get_git_repositories (plural listing), but it never names that sibling or states the distinction explicitly.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to get_git_repositories for listing versus this tool for a single repo. The agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.