Retrieve details for a specific Backlog pull request by number, using optional repository or project identifiers to locate it accurately.
Returns information about a specific pull request
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number | Yes | Pull request number | |
| 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 / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "projectIdOrKey",
- "repoIdOrName",
- "number"
-]New value: +[
+ "number"
+]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 mention of what fields come back, what happens when the PR number or repo identifiers don't resolve, or how the repoId/repoName and projectId/projectKey pairs interact. With no output schema, some of this burden falls on the description.
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 zero filler. Brevity is appropriate, though it tips into under-specification given the tool's identifier complexity.
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 five parameters forming alternative identifier pairs, one required field, and no output schema, the description should clarify which identifiers suffice and roughly what is returned. It leaves both questions entirely to the schema, which only labels the fields.
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%, and all five parameters carry descriptions, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, notably silent on why both repoId and repoName (and projectId and projectKey) exist as alternative identifiers.
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 ('Returns') and resource ('information about a specific pull request'), and the word 'specific' signals single-resource retrieval as opposed to the sibling get_pull_requests list. It does not explicitly name the sibling, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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 guidance on when to use this versus get_pull_requests (list) or get_pull_request_comments. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is for fetching one PR by number.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.