zentao-mcp-server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.24
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation: listing projects, listing bugs, detail, resolve (single/batch), close, verify, comment, upload/download attachments, and token management. Even with overlapping operations like resolve vs batch resolve, the single vs batch scopes are clearly separated by descriptions.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., list_my_projects, resolve_bug, upload_attachment). The naming is predictable and clear, with no mixed conventions.
Tool Count5/5
With 11 tools, the server is well-scoped for a bug tracking domain. Each tool serves a specific purpose without redundancy, covering core operations like listing, resolving, commenting, and file attachments.
Completeness2/5
The tool set is incomplete for a full bug lifecycle. Missing essential tools: create_bug, update_bug (general-purpose), delete_bug, and search bugs beyond 'my bugs'. The list_my_projects tool is noted as unreliable, and there is no tool to list all bugs or manage other entities like users or products.
Average 3.7/5 across 11 of 11 tools scored. Lowest: 2.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 27 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fails to disclose important behavioral traits such as whether closing is irreversible, what permissions are needed, side effects (e.g., notifications), or the resulting state of the bug.
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 description is very concise at only 4 words, but it omits necessary details. While front-loaded, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
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 no output schema, no annotations, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, side effects, or how this tool fits with siblings like resolve_bug.
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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It reinforces the id parameter but does not explain the comment parameter's usage or any constraints beyond type.
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 (close), resource (bug), and identification method (by ID). It is specific and distinguishes from most siblings, but does not differentiate from the similar-sounding resolve_bug, which could cause confusion.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like resolve_bug or batch_resolve_my_bugs. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions for closing a bug.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It mentions 'heuristic filtering' and a specific unreliability case, which adds transparency, but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or detailed behavior beyond that caveat.
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?
Two sentences, no redundancy. The main action is front-loaded, and the caveat follows immediately. Every word serves a purpose.
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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps. It covers purpose and one usage caveat, but lacks parameter documentation and broader behavioral details, making it insufficient for confident use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention the single 'keyword' parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain what the parameter does or how to use it, leaving the agent without necessary guidance.
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 (list projects) and the scope (I participate in) with a specific qualifier (heuristic filtering). It differentiates from sibling tools which focus on bugs. However, 'heuristic filtering' is somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a negative usage guideline (not reliable for certain project sets) but lacks explicit when-to-use instructions or alternatives. It hints at limitations but does not compare to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. Only 'cached' is disclosed. Missing information on whether the operation is destructive, side effects of force, token expiration, or rate limits.
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?
Single sentence that is front-loaded and to the point, with no unnecessary content.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is insufficient: it omits parameter behavior, caching details, and any usage context beyond the basic function.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description does not mention parameter 'force'. The agent has no guidance on what the boolean does, leading to potential misuse.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it gets or refreshes a ZenTao API token, noting caching. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools (bug/project tools).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives, but no similar sibling tools exist. The description implies usage when a token is needed, but could be more explicit about prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It mentions API Token auth and return values (saved path, file size), which adds useful context beyond the schema. However, it omits details like file overwrite behavior, error handling, or required directory existence.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes essential details (auth, return info) without extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the core functionality and auth method. However, it lacks guidance on error scenarios, permissions, or whether the savePath must pre-exist, leaving gaps for a complete understanding.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for this case.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (download), resource (file/attachment from ZenTao), and the key parameter (fileID) with the target (save to local disk). It uniquely distinguishes itself from siblings like 'upload_attachment'.
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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'get bug detail' without mentioning what is returned, rate limits, or authentication. For a read operation, it is insufficiently transparent.
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 uses one short, clear sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately concise for a simple retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple structure (1 param, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks details on the response format. With siblings like 'verify_bug', more context on what 'detail' includes would be helpful.
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 coverage is 100%: the parameter 'id' is already described as 'Bug ID' in the schema. The description just reiterates 'by ID', adding no extra meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get bug detail by ID', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_my_bugs' (list) and 'resolve_bug' (mutate).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a specific bug ID is known, but no explicit guidance on when to use alternatives (e.g., 'get_my_bugs' for listing) or when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it does not mention file size limits, format constraints, overwrite behavior, permission requirements, or side effects. The description only states the basic action, leaving the agent uninformed about important execution details.
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?
Two concise sentences. The first defines the action, the second provides usage guidance. No extraneous words; adequately front-loaded. Efficient and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (upload + attach), but the description omits return value (e.g., attachment ID), error scenarios, and any constraints (e.g., file size, type restrictions). Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete for a fully informed agent decision. Still, core purpose is clear.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context ('screenshot, log', 'after bug fix') but does not provide extra meaning for the parameters beyond what the schema already gives (e.g., no explanation of what happens if filePath is invalid or the effect of fileName). Neutral contribution.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action (upload a file, attach to bug), specifies typical file types (screenshot, log), and sets the context (visual evidence). Unambiguous and distinct from siblings like download_attachment or comment_bug.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides a specific use case: 'Use after bug fix to provide screenshot proof.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives. Still helpful for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool lists bugs and supports filters, but fails to mention authentication, rate limits, read-only nature, error handling, or side effects.
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?
Description is extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the main action and purpose, and including only essential guidance without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers core functionality and parameter relationships but lacks details on return format, pagination behavior, or error scenarios. It is minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing key filters and providing guidance on when to use projectSetId or alternative path, improving parameter semantics beyond schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool lists bugs assigned to the user and mentions supported filters (status, keyword, limit, page), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_my_projects or get_bug_detail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description advises to prefer projectSetId or '/my/bug' over list_my_projects when dealing with project-set scope, providing helpful usage context. However, it does not explicitly compare with other sibling tools like resolve_bug or close_bug.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses core behavior: 'pass -> close, fail -> activate'. However, it does not mention permissions, state prerequisites, or irreversibility, which would be expected for a state-changing tool.
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?
Extremely concise single sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's action. No extraneous words; every word serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Description covers the core logic but lacks context on when to use it versus sibling tools (e.g., close_bug) and does not specify prerequisites (e.g., bug state). For a simple tool with complete schema, it is marginally adequate but not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by linking the result parameter to the outcome (close or activate), which is not explicitly in the schema. This enhances understanding of the parameter's impact.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'verify' and resource 'bug result', and specifies behavior based on outcome. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like close_bug and resolve_bug by focusing on verification, not just closing or resolving.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies usage for verifying bug results, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like close_bug or comment_bug. There are no when-not or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It explains that solutionModules is required and will reject if missing, that comment is ignored for resolve, that stopOnError is true by default, and fallback to env var. It is transparent about defaults and field priorities.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is moderately concise, front-loading the main purpose and key requirements. It uses bullet-like phrasing but could be more streamlined. Every sentence adds value, though some details like 'Prefer projectSetId...' could be integrated elsewhere.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (15 params, nested object), the description covers input constraints well but misses output details. No output schema, so description should hint at what the batch resolve returns (list of results/errors). This gap prevents a higher score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds value beyond schema by clarifying that comment and solution are ignored for resolve, and that solutionModules is structured with server-side formatting. This extra context elevates the score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Batch resolve my bugs via the real resolve API', specifying verb, resource, and batch nature. It distinguishes from sibling tools like resolve_bug (singular) by the batch approach and mentions default status and resolution.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides requirements (solutionModules, resolvedBuild) and scope preferences (projectSetId / /my/bug), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like resolve_bug. It lacks explicit 'when to use' vs 'when not to use' guidance, relying on the name for context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that solutionModules is required and the call will reject without it. Explains that comment and solution fields are ignored or only appended conditionally. Describes server-side formatting. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well, though return behavior is not mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the verb and endpoint. It packs essential information without redundancy, though it could benefit from bullet points for clarity. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested object, ignored fields), the description covers key aspects: required modules, ignored fields, fallback for build, and misuse warning. Missing return value details and error scenarios, but output schema is absent and annotations are lacking, so the description does a good job overall.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value by clarifying that comment and solution are ignored for resolution, explaining the fallback for resolvedBuild, and providing GOOD/BAD examples for solutionModules fields. This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the exact action ('Resolve one bug by ID via POST /bugs/{id}/resolve'), clearly identifying the verb, resource, and HTTP method. It distinguishes from sibling tools like close_bug and batch_resolve_my_bugs by focusing on single bug resolution with structured solutionModules.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use the tool (for proper resolution with solutionModules) and warns against using HTTP PUT/edit as a substitute. Mentions required fields and fallback for resolvedBuild. However, it could be more explicit about when to use this versus sibling tools like batch_resolve_my_bugs or close_bug.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that solutionModules is required and auto-formatted, and that the comment field is ignored. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; lacks info on whether comment appends or replaces.
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?
Two concise sentences plus a list, bolded key terms. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with nested object and no output schema, description explains auto-formatting template. Missing explicit return value, but sufficient for typical usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and description adds significant meaning: clarifies 'comment' is ignored, explains solutionModules fields with good/bad examples, and specifies rejection behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Add comment to one bug by ID', specifying verb, resource, and key requirement (solutionModules). Distinguishes from siblings like resolve_bug and close_bug.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states that plain comment without solutionModules is rejected and that 'comment' parameter is ignored. Provides clear when-to-use context, though no direct sibling comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![zentao-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aipper/zentao-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aipper/zentao-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![zentao-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aipper/zentao-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aipper/zentao-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/aipper/zentao-mcp'

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