Skip to main content
Glama
dpesch

MantisBT MCP Server

by dpesch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Get Issue Enum Values

get_issue_enums
Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up valid IDs, names, and labels for issue fields like severity, status, priority, resolution, and reproducibility before creating or updating MantisBT issues.

Instructions

Return valid ID, name, and (if available) localized label for all issue enum fields.

Use this tool before creating or updating issues to look up the correct value for severity, status, priority, resolution, or reproducibility.

Example response (English installation): { "severity": [{"id": 10, "name": "feature"}, {"id": 50, "name": "minor"}, ...], "status": [{"id": 10, "name": "new"}, {"id": 20, "name": "feedback"}, ...], "priority": [{"id": 10, "name": "none"}, {"id": 30, "name": "normal"}, ...], "resolution": [{"id": 10, "name": "open"}, {"id": 20, "name": "fixed"}, ...], "reproducibility": [{"id": 10, "name": "always"}, {"id": 70, "name": "have not tried"}, ...] }

Example response (localized installation, e.g. German): { "status": [ {"id": 10, "name": "new", "label": "Neu"}, {"id": 20, "name": "feedback", "label": "Feedback"}, {"id": 30, "name": "acknowledged", "label": "Bestätigt"}, ... ], ... }

Fields:

  • "id" — numeric ID accepted by the API

  • "name" — localized or canonical name from the MantisBT database

  • "label" — UI display label (only present when it differs from "name")

  • "canonical_name" — English canonical name (only present on localized installs)

For create_issue (severity, priority, reproducibility): pass the canonical English name, the localized "name", or the "label" — all are accepted. The server resolves them to the correct ID.

For update_issue: pass either "id" or "name" in the field reference object.

Note: on some installations enum values are customized at the database level. In that case "name" itself may be localized (e.g. "kleinerer Fehler" instead of "minor") and no "label" will be present because there is no separate English original.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.14.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. Addedv1.10.4
  3. Removed
  4. First observedv1.5.6

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial context: the exact response shape, the meaning of id/name/label/canonical_name, which value forms create_issue vs update_issue accept, and the edge case where DB-level customization makes 'name' localized with no 'label'. This is rich disclosure well beyond annotations.

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?

Front-loaded purpose and usage, then structured field notes. The two full example responses are lengthy, but they earn their place by contrasting English vs localized output, which is the tool's main subtlety. Slightly verbose 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return contract — and it does fully: definitions of all fields, example responses, and the customization edge case. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results correctly.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema carries no burden and the baseline is 4. The description instead documents the semantic contract of the returned values (which forms are accepted by downstream tools), which is the relevant guidance for a no-argument lookup tool.

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 and resource: 'Return valid ID, name, and (if available) localized label for all issue enum fields.' An agent can clearly distinguish this lookup tool from siblings like get_issue, get_issue_fields, and get_metadata without opening schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use it ('before creating or updating issues') and which fields it covers (severity, status, priority, resolution, reproducibility), and names the downstream tools create_issue and update_issue with how to pass values to each. No inference required.

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