Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Backlog MCP Server

Backlog MCP Server

by nulab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_wikis_count

Read-only

Returns the number of wiki pages in a specified Backlog project using a project ID or key, helping you assess documentation volume.

Instructions

Returns count of wiki pages in a project

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.15.1
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • removedInput schema / properties / organization
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Optional organization name. Use list_organizations to inspect available organizations.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.11.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / organization
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional organization name. Use list_organizations to inspect available organizations.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.0.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / projectId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The numeric ID of the project (e.g., 12345)",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / projectIdOrKey
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Project ID or project key",
-  "type": [
-    "string",
-    "number"
-  ]
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / projectKey
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The key of the project (e.g., 'PROJECT')",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "projectIdOrKey"
-]
  4. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already cover readOnly, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile needs no restatement. The description contributes only the fact that the response is a count rather than page objects; it says nothing about what happens with zero pages or with an unknown project.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single well-formed sentence with no filler, and the essential resource is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for the alternatives available, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a simple counting tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the definition is close to adequate, but the zero-required-parameter schema leaves ambiguity about whether projectId or projectKey must be supplied, and the description does not resolve it.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the projectId/projectKey alternatives or whether they are mutually exclusive, so a baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Returns count of wiki pages') in a single sentence, and the count framing distinguishes it from the sibling get_wiki_pages list tool. It does not explicitly name the sibling or say how the count relates to the listing, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over get_wiki_pages or get_wiki, and no indication of which of the two optional parameters to supply (projectId vs projectKey). The agent must infer that this is the cheap alternative when only a total is needed.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools