Skip to main content
Glama
nulab

Backlog MCP Server

get_wikis_count

Count wiki pages in a Backlog project to track documentation volume and manage content organization.

Instructions

Returns count of wiki pages in a project

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdNoThe numeric ID of the project (e.g., 12345)
projectKeyNoThe key of the project (e.g., 'PROJECT')

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that executes the tool logic: resolves the project ID or key and calls the Backlog API to get the wiki count.
    handler: async ({ projectId, projectKey }) => {
      const result = resolveIdOrKey(
        'project',
        { id: projectId, key: projectKey },
        t
      );
      if (!result.ok) {
        throw result.error;
      }
      return backlog.getWikisCount(result.value);
    },
  • Input schema definition for the tool parameters (projectId or projectKey). Also references outputSchema: WikiCountSchema.
    const getWikisCountSchema = buildToolSchema((t) => ({
      projectId: z
        .number()
        .optional()
        .describe(
          t(
            'TOOL_GET_WIKIS_COUNT_PROJECT_ID',
            'The numeric ID of the project (e.g., 12345)'
          )
        ),
      projectKey: z
        .string()
        .optional()
        .describe(
          t(
            'TOOL_GET_WIKIS_COUNT_PROJECT_KEY',
            "The key of the project (e.g., 'PROJECT')"
          )
        ),
    }));
  • Registration of the getWikisCountTool in the 'wiki' toolset group within the allTools export.
    {
      name: 'wiki',
      description: 'Tools for managing wiki pages.',
      enabled: false,
      tools: [
        getWikiPagesTool(backlog, helper),
        getWikisCountTool(backlog, helper),
        getWikiTool(backlog, helper),
        addWikiTool(backlog, helper),
        updateWikiTool(backlog, helper),
      ],
    },
  • Import of the getWikisCountTool function.
    import { getWikisCountTool } from './getWikisCount.js';
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Returns count', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the return value (e.g., numeric count). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (a simple count operation), 2 parameters with full schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, usage context, and output format, which are needed for full completeness. It meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('projectId' and 'projectKey') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a project context. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description, which fits here.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Returns count') and resource ('wiki pages in a project'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'count_issues' or 'get_wiki_pages', which would require mentioning it's specifically for counting wiki pages rather than listing them or counting other entities.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_wiki_pages' (which might list pages) or 'count_issues' (which counts a different resource), nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing project identification. Usage is implied by the resource focus but not explicitly stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/nulab/backlog-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server