Retrieve backlog issues for a Jira board by board ID, with pagination to control result size and starting index.
Get backlog issues for a board.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| board_id | Yes | Board ID | |
| start_at | No | Index of the first result (use next_start_at to page) | |
| max_results | No | Maximum results |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.1Input schema / properties / start_atAdded value: +{
+ "default": 0,
+ "description": "Index of the first result (use next_start_at to page)",
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+}v0.6.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety and non-mutating nature. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as pagination behavior or the meaning of 'backlog'. Since annotations cover the key safety aspects, a 3 is appropriate; the description does not contradict them.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, which is efficient. However, it is so sparse that it fails to provide any context beyond the minimal purpose. It is not overly verbose, but it also does not 'earn its place' by adding meaningful guidance.
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?
Given the presence of a complete schema (all parameters documented), annotations (read-only, open world, idempotent), and an output schema (though not shown), the description is minimally sufficient for a simple read operation. It lacks any notes on pagination or typical usage, but the schema's descriptions cover those details. For a straightforward tool, it is adequate but not rich.
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?
The schema provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters, including clear definitions for start_at (with pagination hint) and max_results. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
The description states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('backlog issues') scoped to a board, which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like jira_get_sprint or jira_get_board. It is not as detailed as some examples (no mention of filtering or scope), but it is unambiguous and functional.
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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where backlog issues are needed, nor does it point to other tools for different contexts. With many sibling tools, an agent would have to infer usage from the name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.