Skip to main content
Glama
dpesch

MantisBT MCP Server

by dpesch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Add Issue Relationship

add_relationship

Associate two MantisBT issues by specifying a relationship type, such as duplicate, related, parent, or child. Use it to track dependencies and duplicates across issues.

Instructions

Add a relationship between two MantisBT issues.

Relationship types — use either type_id (numeric) or type_name (string):

  • 0 / "duplicate_of" — this issue is a duplicate of target

  • 1 / "related_to" — this issue is related to target

  • 2 / "parent_of" — this issue depends on target (target must be done first); alias: "depends_on"

  • 3 / "child_of" — this issue blocks target (target can't proceed until this is done); alias: "blocks"

  • 4 / "has_duplicate" — this issue has target as a duplicate

Directionality note: "A child_of B" means A blocks B. "A parent_of B" means A depends on B.

Dash variants (e.g. "related-to") are also accepted for type_name.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
type_idNoRelationship type ID: 0=duplicate_of, 1=related_to, 2=parent_of (depends on), 3=child_of (blocks), 4=has_duplicate. Use either type_id or type_name.
issue_idYesThe source issue ID (the one the relationship is added to)
target_idYesThe target issue ID
type_nameNoRelationship type name as alternative to type_id. Accepted: "duplicate_of", "related_to", "parent_of" (or "depends_on"), "child_of" (or "blocks"), "has_duplicate". Dash variants (e.g. "related-to") also work.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.14.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / issue_id / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
    • addedInput schema / properties / target_id / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
  2. Addedv1.10.4
  3. Removed
  4. First observedv1.5.6

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond that by defining what each relationship type means and how directionality works (A child_of B means A blocks B). It does not disclose failure modes such as duplicate-relationship handling, which is notable given idempotentHint=false, but the added semantic context is substantial.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a scannable type table and two short clarifying notes. Every line carries decision-relevant content; the dash-variant note is a minor nicety but not wasteful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and full schema description coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: type mapping, directionality, and parameter alternatives. Nothing material to correct invocation is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: the explicit directionality mapping and the alias/parent/child semantics clarify what the numeric type IDs actually do to the two issues, which the schema only lists tersely.

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?

States a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('relationship between two MantisBT issues'), and the sibling list contains remove_relationship, which this is clearly the inverse of. An agent can distinguish it from every other sibling without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear operational context for performing the add, including the choice between type_id and type_name and the directionality semantics. It stops short of explicitly stating when to prefer this over remove_relationship or how to handle an already-existing relationship, so it is clear context but not full when/when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools