Retrieves the available issue types for a Backlog project by project ID or key, so you can select the correct type when creating or filtering issues.
Returns list of issue types 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on whether the list is paginated, cached, or whether it reflects archived issue types.
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 waste. It is efficient but borders on under-specified for a lookup whose identifier semantics are ambiguous.
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 lookup with a fully documented schema and clear annotations, this is close to adequate. The remaining gap is the projectId-vs-projectKey choice and whether one is required, which neither schema nor description resolves.
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 coverage is 100%, so both projectId and projectKey are documented with examples, and the baseline is 3. However, the description doesn't clarify the important fact that both parameters are optional and presumably either identifies the project — an agent could call with neither and the description gives no warning.
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 list of issue types') scoped to a project, which is enough to distinguish it from nearby lookup siblings like get_categories, get_priorities, and get_resolutions. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or how they differ.
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, when-not, or alternative is given. The phrase 'for a project' only weakly implies the tool is scoped to a single project; nothing tells the agent when to prefer issue types over custom fields or priorities.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.