Skip to main content
Glama

batch_resolve_my_bugs

Resolve multiple active bugs at once with fixed resolution. The batch requires shared solution modules covering root cause, fix approach, logic change, and impact.

Instructions

Batch resolve my bugs via the real resolve API (default status=active, resolution=fixed). REQUIRES shared non-empty solutionModules {rootCause, fixApproach, logicChange, impact} — without it the batch will REJECT with an error. Plain comment/solution is no longer accepted. Requires resolvedBuild or ZENTAO_DEFAULT_RESOLVED_BUILD on instances that validate 解决版本. Prefer projectSetId or /my/bug for project-set scope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoDefault 1
pathNoOptional safe list path override. Allowed values: /bugs, /my/bug, /my/bugs.
limitNoList page size, default 50
statusNoDefault active
commentNoIGNORED for resolve — only solutionModules is accepted. This field only appends plain text to the action record if solutionModules is also present.
keywordNoOptional keyword filter before resolve
maxItemsNoMax resolve count, default 20
solutionNoIGNORED for resolve — only solutionModules is accepted. This field is kept for backward compatibility only.
productIdNoOptional product id (for instances requiring product scope)
projectIdNoOptional project id. Directly query /projects/{id}/bugs, no cross-project merge.
resolutionNoDefault fixed
stopOnErrorNoDefault true; stop on first resolve failure
projectSetIdNoOptional project-set id. Prefer this for project-set bugs, especially when the project set has no concrete project entries.
resolvedBuildNoShared 解决版本 for the batch. Falls back to ZENTAO_DEFAULT_RESOLVED_BUILD. Common value: trunk
solutionModulesNoREQUIRED — resolve WILL REJECT without it. Shared structured solution for the batch. Server formats into multi-line text with 【根因】【修复思路】【改动逻辑】【影响范围】. Write common root cause and shared logic changes.
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.

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/aipper/zentao-mcp'

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