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

@illodev/taiga-mcp

by illodev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

taiga_resolver_issue

Resolve an issue reference number to its unique ID within a specific project. Input the project slug and issue ref to get the exact issue ID needed for further operations.

Instructions

Resolve an issue 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>",
      "issue": "<issue>"
    },
    "name": "taiga_resolver_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueYesIssue ref number
projectYesProject slug

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description lacks details about side effects (though a resolver implies no mutation), error behavior for invalid refs, or the exact return format (just 'its ID'). With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but offers only the core transformation without additional behavioral context.

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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler or redundant information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-parameter resolver, the description sufficiently explains the operation and output. While it could mention error cases, the tool's low complexity and fully described parameters make it complete enough.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema with descriptions ('Issue ref number' and 'Project slug'), so the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. This aligns with the baseline of 3 due to high schema coverage.

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 ('Resolve') and the resource ('an issue ref') and the result ('to its ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling resolver_* tools (project, userstory, task, etc.) by specifying the resource type.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The verb 'Resolve' and the existence of sibling resolver tools imply it is used to translate an issue ref into an internal ID, but this is only implied, not directly stated.

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