Retrieve the list of available issue resolutions from Backlog to select or map resolution values when managing issues.
Returns list of issue resolutions
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / organizationRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Optional organization name. Use list_organizations to inspect available organizations.",
- "type": "string"
-}v0.11.0Input 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. The description adds no further behavioral context such as ordering, whether the list is exhaustive, or whether default/uncategorized resolutions are included.
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 five-word sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than optimal density.
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 zero-parameter reference-list tool with annotations covering safety, the definition is minimally adequate. With no output schema, the description could state what each entry contains (id, name) and whether the list is filtered by project, which it omits.
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, so parameter semantics are not a concern and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description is needed to explain inputs.
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 and resource: 'Returns list of issue resolutions'. An agent can tell it returns reference data rather than resolving an issue. It does not differentiate itself from analogous sibling lookup tools such as get_priorities or get_issue_types.
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 guidance on when to call it, e.g. to discover valid resolution values before calling update_issue, and no mention of prerequisites or alternatives. The agent must infer the use case from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.