Retrieve Backlog space details, including configuration and identifying information, to verify workspace context before managing projects, issues, or wiki pages.
Returns information about the Backlog space
| 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, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond them, such as what fields the returned space record contains or whether any caching/auth scope applies; it essentially restates the tool name.
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 no wasted words. It is efficient, though also thin, so it earns a solid rather than top score.
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 output schema and no annotations covering the return payload, the description should indicate what information about the space is returned (name, domain, settings, etc.). It leaves the agent unable to predict the response shape for even a simple read.
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 there is no parameter semantics to document; the schema is empty and complete. Baseline for a zero-param tool is 4.
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 information about the Backlog space. An agent can tell it is a read of the space-level resource, though it does not distinguish itself from near-neighbors like get_myself, get_users, or get_space_activities.
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 this versus the numerous sibling getters, and no mention of prerequisites such as authentication.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.