Skip to main content
Glama
dpesch

MantisBT MCP Server

by dpesch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Detach Tag from Issue

detach_tag
Idempotent

Remove a tag from a MantisBT issue by supplying the issue ID and tag ID; permissions depend on whether you own the tag or it was added by someone else.

Instructions

Remove a tag from a MantisBT issue.

Requires tag_detach_own_threshold (default: REPORTER) for own tags, or tag_detach_threshold (default: DEVELOPER) for tags attached by others.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tag_idYesNumeric tag ID to remove
issue_idYesNumeric issue ID

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 / tag_id / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
  2. Addedv1.10.4
  3. Removed
  4. First observedv1.5.6

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already disclose readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=false. The description adds useful authorization context, specifying the threshold constants and defaults for own versus others' tags, which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the action and then the permission requirements. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description provides enough context: the action, platform, and permission conditions are all covered. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 both issue_id and tag_id are already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: remove a tag from a MantisBT issue. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like attach_tags and list_tags without ambiguity.

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?

It clearly states the permission thresholds required for detaching one's own tags versus tags attached by others. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use this one, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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