Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
PingCode MCP

PingCode MCP

by frontendRicky
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Update PingCode Bug Status

pingcode_update_bug_status

Update the status of a single bug by its work item identifier or number. Supports optional state protection and comments.

Instructions

按编号或工作项 ID 修改单个缺陷状态。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "pingcode_update_bug_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dryRunNotrue 时只返回计划，不执行 PATCH。
commentNo可选：状态变更成功后追加评论。
stateIdNo目标状态 ID；提供后优先于 statusName。
projectIdNo
identifierNo工作项编号，如 PROJ-455。
statusNameNo目标状态名称，如 挂起、已验收、打开、进行中。
workItemIdNoPingCode 工作项内部 ID。
projectIdentifierNo
expectedCurrentStatusNameNo可选：当前状态保护条件，不匹配则拒绝更新。

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action, omitting details on destructiveness, permissions, side effects, or requirements for parameters like identifier or workItemId. The dryRun and expectedCurrentStatusName fields are not explained.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is concise but could include more context without becoming verbose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It omits information about optional parameters, status update methods, and protection conditions, making it incomplete for effective use.

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 coverage is 78%, so most parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond implying that identifier is a user-facing number and workItemId is internal. Baseline 3 is 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 clearly states the action (modify status), resource (bug), and identification method (by number or work item ID). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that update requirements or perform other operations.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pingcode_update_work_item_fields or pingcode_mark_bugs_fixed. It lacks explicit context for appropriate usage.

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