Skip to main content
Glama
nulab

Backlog MCP Server

update_watching

Modify existing watch notes in Backlog to track project changes, update issue monitoring details, or adjust task observation records.

Instructions

Updates an existing watch note

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
watchIdYesWatch ID
noteYesUpdated note for the watch

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler implementation for the 'update_watching' tool. It defines the tool's metadata, input schema, output schema, and the async handler function that updates a watching list item using backlog.patchWatchingListItem.
    export const updateWatchingTool = (
      backlog: Backlog,
      { t }: TranslationHelper
    ): ToolDefinition<
      ReturnType<typeof updateWatchingSchema>,
      (typeof WatchingListItemSchema)['shape']
    > => {
      return {
        name: 'update_watching',
        description: t(
          'TOOL_UPDATE_WATCHING_DESCRIPTION',
          'Updates an existing watch note'
        ),
        schema: z.object(updateWatchingSchema(t)),
        outputSchema: WatchingListItemSchema,
        handler: async ({ watchId, note }) =>
          backlog.patchWatchingListItem(watchId, note),
      };
    };
  • Zod schema definition for the input parameters of the update_watching tool: watchId (number) and note (string).
    const updateWatchingSchema = buildToolSchema((t) => ({
      watchId: z.number().describe(t('TOOL_UPDATE_WATCHING_WATCH_ID', 'Watch ID')),
      note: z
        .string()
        .describe(t('TOOL_UPDATE_WATCHING_NOTE', 'Updated note for the watch')),
    }));
  • Registration of the updateWatchingTool into the 'issue' toolset group within the allTools export.
    updateWatchingTool(backlog, helper),
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Updates' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, error handling (e.g., invalid watchId), or what happens on success (e.g., returns updated watch). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., side effects, error cases) and doesn't explain what 'updating' entails beyond the basic action. Given the complexity of updates and the absence of structured data, more context is needed.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (watchId and note) adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the note is updated, which is redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Updates') and the resource ('an existing watch note'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_issue' or 'update_project', which follow the same 'update [resource]' pattern, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing watch ID), exclusions, or relationships to other tools like 'add_watching' or 'delete_watching', leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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