Skip to main content
Glama

Update Issue

update_issue

Update specific fields of an existing MantisBT issue, such as summary, status, priority, or resolution, without modifying other fields.

Instructions

Update one or more fields of an existing MantisBT issue using a partial PATCH.

The "fields" object accepts any combination of:

  • summary (string)

  • description (string)

  • steps_to_reproduce (string)

  • additional_information (string)

  • status: { name: "new"|"feedback"|"acknowledged"|"confirmed"|"assigned"|"resolved"|"closed" }

  • resolution: { id: 20 } (20 = fixed/resolved)

  • handler: { id: <user_id> } or { name: "" }

  • priority: { name: "<priority_name>" }

  • severity: { name: "<severity_name>" }

  • reproducibility: { name: "<reproducibility_name>" }

  • category: { name: "<category_name>" }

  • version: { name: "<version_name>" } (affected version)

  • target_version: { name: "<version_name>" }

  • fixed_in_version: { name: "<version_name>" }

  • view_state: { name: "public"|"private" }

Important: when resolving an issue, always set BOTH status and resolution to avoid leaving resolution as "open".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesNumeric issue ID to update
dry_runNoIf true, return the patch payload that would be sent without actually updating the issue. Useful for previewing changes before committing them.
fieldsYesFields to update (partial update — only provided fields are changed; unknown keys are rejected)
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) without destructiveness or idempotency. The description adds that it is a partial PATCH and lists all supported fields with their allowed values. Important restrictions like requiring both status and resolution for resolution are disclosed. Missing details about side effects (e.g., notifications) but acceptable given annotation coverage.

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 well-structured, starting with the general purpose, then listing fields with formats, and ending with a critical usage note. It is somewhat lengthy but all sentences are informative. No redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description thoroughly covers the fields and their formats, and includes the key guideline. However, it does not describe the return value or response format (no output schema). For a mutation tool, knowing what the response contains (e.g., updated issue, success status) is important but omitted.

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 significantly enriches parameter meaning by listing allowed values for status, resolution format, handler as id/name, and other field formats. It also clarifies the 'fields' object structure and the partial update semantics. This goes well beyond the 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?

The description clearly states 'Update one or more fields of an existing MantisBT issue using a partial PATCH,' specifying the verb, resource, and method. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_issue and delete_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 description provides explicit guidance on setting both status and resolution when resolving an issue, including a warning about leaving resolution as 'open.' It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context of 'updating' is clear given the sibling tool names.

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/dpesch/mantisbt-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server