Retrieve Wiki pages for a Backlog project by project ID or key, optionally filtered by keyword, to find and manage project documentation.
Returns list of Wiki pages
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyword | No | Keyword to search for in Wiki pages | |
| projectId | No | The numeric ID of the project (e.g., 12345) | |
| projectKey | No | The key of the project (e.g., '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"
+}v1.0.0Input schema / properties / projectIdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The numeric ID of the project (e.g., 12345)",
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / projectIdOrKeyRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Project ID or project key",
- "type": [
- "string",
- "number"
- ]
-}Input schema / properties / projectKeyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The key of the project (e.g., 'PROJECT')",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "projectIdOrKey"
-]Does 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 covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing on top: no pagination behavior, no default sort, no statement of what happens when keyword/projectId/projectKey are omitted or combined.
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 no padding, but it is under-specified rather than concise — the brevity comes at the cost of scope and filter behavior that an agent needs.
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 three-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description should say what a result item looks like, whether results are paginated, and how the filters interact. None of that is present, leaving the agent to discover behavior empirically.
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%, so the schema itself documents keyword, projectId and projectKey with examples. The description adds no meaning beyond that, but per the high-coverage baseline a 3 is appropriate.
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?
"Returns list of Wiki pages" names a verb and resource, but it essentially restates the tool name and says nothing about scope (project-scoped? keyword-filtered? paginated?). It does not distinguish this from the sibling get_wiki (single page) or get_wikis_count, so the agent must infer the difference from names alone.
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 rather than get_wiki, get_wikis_count, or get_documents, and no note that all three parameters are optional. The agent must guess whether an unfiltered call is a full dump or a scoped listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.