Skip to main content
Glama
nulab

Backlog MCP Server

get_myself

Retrieve authenticated user details from Backlog to verify identity and access permissions for project management tasks.

Instructions

Returns information about the authenticated user

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The getMyselfTool factory function defines the 'get_myself' MCP tool, including its schema, description, and handler. The handler asynchronously invokes backlog.getMyself() to fetch the authenticated user's details.
    export const getMyselfTool = (
      backlog: Backlog,
      { t }: TranslationHelper
    ): ToolDefinition<
      ReturnType<typeof getMyselfSchema>,
      (typeof UserSchema)['shape']
    > => {
      return {
        name: 'get_myself',
        description: t(
          'TOOL_GET_MYSELF_DESCRIPTION',
          'Returns information about the authenticated user'
        ),
        schema: z.object(getMyselfSchema(t)),
        outputSchema: UserSchema,
        importantFields: ['id', 'userId', 'name', 'roleType'],
        handler: async () => backlog.getMyself(),
      };
    };
  • Defines the input schema for the get_myself tool, which accepts no parameters (empty object).
    const getMyselfSchema = buildToolSchema((_t) => ({}));
  • Zod schema defining the output structure for user information returned by the get_myself tool.
    export const UserSchema = z.object({
      id: z.number(),
      userId: z.string(),
      name: z.string(),
      roleType: RoleTypeSchema,
      lang: LanguageSchema,
      mailAddress: z.string(),
      lastLoginTime: z.string(),
    });
  • The get_myself tool is instantiated and registered within the 'space' toolset group in the allTools export.
        getSpaceTool(backlog, helper),
        getUsersTool(backlog, helper),
        getMyselfTool(backlog, helper),
      ],
    },
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't mention authentication requirements (though implied by 'authenticated user'), rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence that communicates the essential purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately states what it does but lacks important context. Without annotations or output schema, it should ideally mention the response format (what information is returned) and any authentication prerequisites. The description is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema is fully documented). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. The baseline for zero parameters with full schema coverage is 4, as there's nothing to compensate for.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Returns information') and the target resource ('about the authenticated user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't specifically differentiate this from sibling tools like 'get_users' or 'get_project' that might also return user information in different contexts.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_users' that might return user lists and 'get_project' that might include user data, there's no indication of when this specific authenticated-user endpoint is preferred or required.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/nulab/backlog-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server