Skip to main content
Glama

Get Multiple Issues

get_issues
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch multiple MantisBT issues by numeric ID in one call, running parallel requests and returning null for missing IDs with requested, found, and failed counters.

Instructions

Retrieve multiple MantisBT issues by their numeric IDs in a single MCP call. Requests run in parallel (max 5 concurrent). Missing or inaccessible IDs return null at their array position — the call never fails due to individual missing IDs. Response includes "requested", "found", and "failed" counters for quick validation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsYesArray of numeric issue IDs to fetch (1–50). null is returned per ID on 404/403/error instead of failing the whole call.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.14.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / ids / items / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
  2. Addedv1.10.4
  3. Removed
  4. Addedv1.5.15

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive); the description adds real operational traits: parallel execution capped at 5 concurrent, per-position null on 404/403/error, and the guarantee that the call never fails on individual misses. This is exactly the extra context an agent needs before selecting it.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then execution model, then failure semantics, then response shape. 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the requested/found/failed counters and the null-per-position convention. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret the result 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% and includes the 1–50 range and null-on-error note, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the array-position-to-null correspondence and the concurrency cap, adding a little meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 (retrieve), resource (MantisBT issues), and scope (multiple, by numeric IDs, single call), which cleanly distinguishes it from the singular sibling get_issue.

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?

The phrase 'in a single MCP call' clearly signals batch-fetch context, and the 1–50 ID cap plus per-position null behavior implies when this is preferable over repeated get_issue calls. It stops short of an explicit 'use get_issue for a single ID' routing statement, so no full 5.

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