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

@illodev/taiga-mcp

by illodev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

taiga_resolver_project

Resolve a Taiga project slug to its numeric ID to enable API operations and workflow automation.

Instructions

Resolve a project slug 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>"
    },
    "name": "taiga_resolver_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectYesProject slug

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the core behavior (slug to ID) but does not disclose what happens for invalid slugs, whether it returns only the ID or a larger object, or any authentication requirements. This is acceptable for a simple resolver but leaves some behavioral aspects unexplained.

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, concise sentence that includes both the action and the input/output relationship. It contains zero redundant words and is perfectly sized for the tool's simple functionality.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns (an ID). It could mention error behavior, but the core transformation is clearly specified, making it reasonably complete.

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?

The input schema already provides a description for the sole parameter ('Project slug') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the action ('Resolve') and the resource ('a project slug to its ID'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from other resolvers by specifying 'project' and the output as an ID, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the similar-sounding taiga_projects_get_by_slug.

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?

The usage context is implied by the name and description: use this tool when you have a project slug and need its numeric ID. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like taiga_projects_get_by_slug, or any mention of prerequisites or fallbacks.

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