Retrieve details for a specific Backlog issue by numeric ID or issue key, enabling quick access to the issue information you need.
Returns information about a specific issue
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issueId | No | The numeric ID of the issue (e.g., 12345) | |
| issueKey | No | The key of the issue (e.g., 'PROJ-123') |
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 / issueIdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The numeric ID of the issue (e.g., 12345)",
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / issueIdOrKeyRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Issue ID or issue key",
- "type": [
- "string",
- "number"
- ]
-}Input schema / properties / issueKeyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The key of the issue (e.g., 'PROJ-123')",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "issueIdOrKey"
-]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating that this is a read operation—it doesn't mention error cases, required identifiers, or return characteristics.
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 appropriately sized for a simple getter, though it is arguably too terse.
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?
Given the simple read nature, annotations, and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not clarify that at least one of issueId or issueKey must be supplied (since neither is required by schema), and it omits any mention of what information is returned.
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 issueId and issueKey are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter semantics, which is expected at this coverage level.
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?
It states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('information about a specific issue'), making the basic operation clear. However, it does not distinguish the tool from siblings like get_issues, get_related_issues, or get_issue_comments.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or identifier requirements. The only usage signal is implicit in the name and resource.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.