Returns the number of watching items for a specified Backlog user, helping you track how many issues or items that user is watching.
Returns count of watching items for a user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userId | Yes | User ID |
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"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds only that the count is for a user, without clarifying what qualifies as a watching item, whether unread-only filtering exists, or what the returned count represents.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It is appropriately sized for a simple count tool, though it could have included one short clarification without becoming verbose.
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 simple one-parameter count tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It still leaves ambiguity about what 'watching items' includes and whether the count is total or filtered, which matters for correct invocation.
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 the schema already documents the single userId parameter as 'User ID.' The description's phrase 'for a user' adds no additional syntax or formatting detail beyond the schema baseline.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: returns a count of watching items for a user. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list tool get_watching_list_items by saying 'count,' though it does not name that alternative.
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 use this tool versus get_watching_list_items or other count tools. The agent must infer the use case from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.