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

@illodev/taiga-mcp

by illodev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

taiga_resolver_epic

Resolve a Taiga epic ref to its internal ID by supplying the project slug and epic ref number, enabling direct lookup for project management automation.

Instructions

Resolve an epic ref to its ID.

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": "<project>",
      "epic": "<epic>"
    },
    "name": "taiga_resolver_epic"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
epicYesEpic ref number
projectYesProject slug

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says what the tool does, not whether it is read-only, how errors are handled, what type of ID is returned, or whether the lookup fails if the ref doesn't exist. This is minimal disclosure for a lookup operation.

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, concise sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key action, though it could be slightly more descriptive without losing conciseness.

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 tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema, so a short description is workable. However, it does not explain what the returned ID looks like, any failure behavior, or how 'ref' differs from 'ID', leaving moderate gaps for an agent.

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 description coverage is 100%: 'epic' is described as 'Epic ref number' and 'project' as 'Project slug'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for high coverage is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('epic ref') and states the output ('its ID'), making the core purpose clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like taiga_epics_get_by_ref, which could also involve epic refs.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as taiga_epics_get_by_ref or other resolver tools. The description is a single sentence with no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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