Skip to main content
Glama

getBugDetail

Retrieve detailed bug information from ZenTao project management system using bug ID, including steps and extracted image URLs for comprehensive issue tracking.

Instructions

Get bug detail by ID; also extracts image URLs from steps HTML into stepsImages.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bugIdYesBug ID (required)

Implementation Reference

  • Handler for the 'getBugDetail' tool. Extracts bugId from input arguments, calls the helper getBugWithImages to fetch and enrich bug data, then returns it as formatted JSON text content.
    if (name === "getBugDetail") {
      const { bugId } = args;
      const bug = await getBugWithImages(bugId);
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: JSON.stringify({ bug }, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • Registration of the 'getBugDetail' tool in the tools list, including its name, description, and input schema definition.
    {
      name: "getBugDetail",
      description:
        "Get bug detail by ID; also extracts image URLs from steps HTML into stepsImages.",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          bugId: { type: "number", description: "Bug ID (required)" },
        },
        required: ["bugId"],
        additionalProperties: false,
      },
    },
  • Core helper function for fetching bug details via ZenTao API and enriching with parsed image URLs from steps HTML.
    async function getBugWithImages(bugId) {
      const res = await callZenTao({ path: `bugs/${bugId}` });
      const bug = res.data || {};
      const stepsHtml = bug.steps || bug.stepsHtml || "";
      const stepsImages = parseImageSources(stepsHtml);
      return { ...bug, stepsHtml, stepsImages };
    }
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 mentions extracting image URLs, which adds some context beyond a simple read operation, but fails to describe critical traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, handles errors, or returns structured data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and an additional feature. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that performs data retrieval and processing. It doesn't explain what 'bug detail' includes, how image extraction works, or the format of the response. For a tool with no structured output documentation, more context is needed to understand its full behavior and results.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'bugId' clearly documented as a required number. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond implying the ID is used to fetch bug details. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding but doesn't detract either.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get bug detail by ID' specifies the verb (get) and resource (bug detail), and 'extracts image URLs from steps HTML into stepsImages' adds a specific processing feature. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getMyBug' or 'getNextBug', which likely also retrieve bug details, preventing a perfect 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, such as needing a valid bug ID, or compare it to siblings like 'getMyBug' (which might filter by user) or 'getBugStats' (which might provide aggregated data). Without such context, users 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.

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/Valiant-Cat/zentao-mcp-server'

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