Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@illodev/taiga-mcp

@illodev/taiga-mcp

by illodev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

taiga_issues_bulk_create

Create multiple issues in a Taiga project at once by providing the project ID and newline-separated issue subjects, eliminating repetitive one-by-one entry.

Instructions

Bulk create issues.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "bulk_issues": "<bulk_issues>"
    },
    "name": "taiga_issues_bulk_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesProject ID
bulk_issuesYesNewline-separated issue subjects

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It states the write action but does not mention required permissions, success/failure behavior, partial creation semantics, or response format.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, with no filler. However, it is so sparse that it borders on under-specification, though for a two-parameter tool a short sentence can be acceptable.

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?

Without annotations or output schema, the description leaves out important context such as return values, prerequisites, and any side effects. It is functional but incomplete for an agent selecting this tool among many siblings.

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 100%; the schema already describes project_id and bulk_issues as 'Newline-separated issue subjects'. The description adds no parameter-level detail 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 'Bulk create issues' clearly identifies the operation: creating multiple issues at once. It distinguishes from sibling taiga_issues_create by the 'bulk' qualifier and from other bulk-create tools by naming issues as the target.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to choose this over taiga_issues_create or how bulk creation should be used. The only implication is from the word 'bulk'.

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