Retrieves all versions and milestones for a Backlog project by project ID or key, helping you review release phases and delivery targets.
Returns list of versions/milestones in the Backlog space
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | No | The numeric ID of the project (e.g., 12345) | |
| projectKey | No | The key of the project (e.g., TEST_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"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only the vague phrase 'in the Backlog space' – no pagination behavior, no result ordering, no disclosure of what happens with zero filters, which is the key behavioral question for a list endpoint with all-optional params.
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, so it is not verbose. But the terseness comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficient communication.
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 list tool with two optional filters, no output schema, and no required parameters, the agent needs to know default scoping and return shape. Neither is present; the description is little more than a restatement of the name.
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 both parameters carry examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description mentions neither parameter and adds no filtering semantics (e.g. whether projectId and projectKey are alternatives or combinable), which is the baseline-3 outcome.
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 list) and a specific resource (versions/milestones), plus a scope hint ('in the Backlog space'). It is distinguishable from the write siblings add_version_milestone / update_version_milestone / delete_version by the read verb, though it never names them explicitly.
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 indication of when to use this versus alternatives, and no guidance on the two optional filters. An agent cannot tell whether omitting both projectId and projectKey returns all versions space-wide or errors, nor when to prefer projectKey over projectId.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.