Skip to main content
Glama

markBugResolved

Mark a bug as resolved in ZenTao project management system by updating its status to fixed and adding resolution comments.

Instructions

Mark a bug as resolved (resolution=fixed).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bugIdYesBug ID (required)
commentNoResolution comment

Implementation Reference

  • Executes the markBugResolved tool by sending a POST request to the ZenTao API endpoint `/bugs/{bugId}/resolve` with `{ resolution: 'fixed', comment }` and returns the API response.
    if (name === "markBugResolved") {
      const { bugId, comment } = args;
      const response = await callZenTao({
        path: `bugs/${bugId}/resolve`,
        method: "POST",
        body: { resolution: "fixed", comment },
      });
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: JSON.stringify(response, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • Defines the input schema for the markBugResolved tool: requires bugId (number), optional comment (string).
    inputSchema: {
      type: "object",
      properties: {
        bugId: { type: "number", description: "Bug ID (required)" },
        comment: { type: "string", description: "Resolution comment" },
      },
      required: ["bugId"],
      additionalProperties: false,
    },
  • Registers the markBugResolved tool in the tools list returned by listTools, including name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: "markBugResolved",
      description: "Mark a bug as resolved (resolution=fixed).",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          bugId: { type: "number", description: "Bug ID (required)" },
          comment: { type: "string", description: "Resolution comment" },
        },
        required: ["bugId"],
        additionalProperties: false,
      },
    },
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. It states the action ('Mark a bug as resolved') but doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether the change is reversible, error handling, or side effects. 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 waste, front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and doesn't include unnecessary information.

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, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral context, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on permissions, reversibility, response format, or error cases, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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 ('bugId' and 'comment'). The description implies the tool applies to a bug but doesn't add syntax, format, or contextual details beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('Mark a bug as resolved') and specifies the resolution type ('resolution=fixed'), which distinguishes it from other resolution states. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'call' or other bug-related operations beyond the provided list.

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, prerequisites, or exclusions. It lacks context about whether it should be used after investigation, testing, or in specific workflows, leaving usage ambiguous.

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