Retrieves the available Backlog issue priority levels so Claude can select or validate priority values when creating and updating issues.
Returns list of priorities
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.1v0.13.1v0.11.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / organizationAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional organization name. Use list_organizations to inspect available organizations.",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.0.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseDoes 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 by structured data. The description adds nothing behavioral on top: no mention of ordering, global vs. project scoping, caching, or typical list size. With annotations carrying the burden, this is a bare-minimum read.
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?
One short sentence with zero padding, which is efficient. However, it is under-specified rather than concise-in-service-of-clarity — the brevity comes from omitting useful information, not from tight editing.
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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations describing return shape, the description is the only place to say what a "priority" actually is in this system. It does not, leaving the agent unable to predict what the returned list contains or how to use it.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level value is withheld.
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?
"Returns list of priorities" gives a verb (returns) and a resource (priorities), so the basic operation is legible. But "priorities" is never disambiguated — it could be an issue-priority master list, a ranking of issues, or personal priorities — and the description does nothing to distinguish it from look-alike siblings such as get_issue_types, get_resolutions, get_categories, and get_custom_fields.
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusion, and no mention of the alternative lookup tools in the sibling set. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the master-data enumeration used when setting an issue's priority.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.