Skip to main content
Glama

resolve_bug

Resolve a bug by ID with required structured solution modules covering root cause, fix approach, logic change, and impact; specify resolved build.

Instructions

Resolve one bug by ID via POST /bugs/{id}/resolve. REQUIREs non-empty solutionModules {rootCause, fixApproach, logicChange, impact} — without it the resolve call will REJECT with an error. Plain comment/solution is no longer accepted. Many instances require resolvedBuild (解决版本); pass it or set ZENTAO_DEFAULT_RESOLVED_BUILD (e.g. trunk). Do NOT use raw HTTP PUT/edit as a resolve substitute — it only flips status without writing solution text.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesBug ID
commentNoIGNORED for resolve — only solutionModules is accepted. This field only appends plain text to the action record if solutionModules is also present.
solutionNoIGNORED for resolve — only solutionModules is accepted. This field is kept for backward compatibility only.
resolutionNoDefault fixed
resolvedBuildNo解决版本 (required by many instances). Falls back to ZENTAO_DEFAULT_RESOLVED_BUILD. Common value: trunk
solutionModulesNoREQUIRED — resolve WILL REJECT without it. Structured solution object. Server formats into multi-line text with 【根因】【修复思路】【改动逻辑】【影响范围】. At least one field must be non-empty.
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.

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