Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Backlog MCP Server

Backlog MCP Server

by nulab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_project

DestructiveIdempotent

Modify an existing Backlog project by ID or key, including name, archive status, chart and subtasking settings, text formatting, and project leader permissions.

Instructions

Updates an existing project

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyNoProject key
nameNoProject name
archivedNoWhether to archive the project
projectIdNoThe numeric ID of the project (e.g., 12345)
projectKeyNoThe key of the project (e.g., 'PROJECT')
chartEnabledNoWhether to enable chart
subtaskingEnabledNoWhether to enable subtasking
textFormattingRuleNoText formatting rule
projectLeaderCanEditProjectLeaderNoWhether project leaders can edit other project leaders

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

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing further: it does not say whether this is a partial patch (only supplied fields change) or a full replace, what omitting all nine optional fields does, or that archiving is a destructive side effect. For a destructive mutation with zero required parameters, this is a meaningful gap.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The single clause is front-loaded and waste-free, but at four words it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise given nine parameters and destructive semantics. There is no structure to speak of.

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

Completeness2/5

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

This is a nine-parameter destructive mutation with no required fields and no output schema, so the description should clarify partial-update behavior and identifier requirements. It omits all of that, leaving the agent to guess at how the call behaves.

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%, so every parameter (key, projectId, archived, chartEnabled, etc.) is already documented in the schema, and the enum on textFormattingRule is visible. The description contributes no additional meaning about parameter interaction or which identifier (key vs projectId vs projectKey) is authoritative.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description gives a clear verb and resource ('Updates an existing project'), so the basic operation is understandable. However, it says nothing about which attributes can be changed or how it differs from siblings like get_project and add_project, so an agent gets only a generic notion of purpose.

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 use this tool versus get_project (read) or add_project (create), nor any prerequisites such as needing an existing project ID or key. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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