Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Backlog MCP Server

Backlog MCP Server

by nulab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_pull_requests_count

Read-only

Counts pull requests in a Backlog repository using optional project, issue, status, assignee, and creator filters to track PR volume.

Instructions

Returns count of pull requests for a repository

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoIdNoRepository ID
issueIdNoIssue IDs
repoNameNoRepository name
statusIdNoStatus IDs
projectIdNoThe numeric ID of the project (e.g., 12345)
assigneeIdNoAssignee user IDs
projectKeyNoThe key of the project (e.g., 'PROJECT')
createdUserIdNoCreated user IDs

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.15.1
  2. Removedv0.13.1
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv0.11.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / organization
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional organization name. Use list_organizations to inspect available organizations.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  4. Changed7 schema fields changedv1.0.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / projectId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The numeric ID of the project (e.g., 12345)",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / projectIdOrKey
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Project ID or project key",
-  "type": [
-    "string",
-    "number"
-  ]
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / projectKey
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The key of the project (e.g., 'PROJECT')",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / repoId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Repository ID",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / repoIdOrName
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Repository ID or name",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / repoName
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Repository name",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "projectIdOrKey",
-  "repoIdOrName"
-]
  5. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the operation is read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is an aggregate count rather than a list, but it does not explain filter behavior, default counting scope when no parameters are supplied, or permissions.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple count tool, though its brevity contributes to gaps addressed under other dimensions.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has eight optional filter parameters and no output schema, yet the description only says the count is 'for a repository.' It omits that the count can be filtered by project, issue, status, assignee, and creator, and does not explain what happens when no repository identifier or filters are supplied.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all eight optional parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mentions only 'repository' and does not add meaning about how issueId, statusId, assigneeId, createdUserId, or project filters affect the count, leaving the baseline score appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns count') and resource ('pull requests') scoped to a repository, which distinguishes it from the sibling get_pull_requests that retrieves PRs rather than counting them. It does not, however, mention the broader project/issue/status/assignee filtering implied by the schema.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of get_pull_requests or get_pull_request. The 'count' wording implies aggregate use, but the description provides no conditions, exclusions, or named alternatives.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools