Skip to main content
Glama

创建 TAPD bug

tapd_create_bug

Create a confirmed bug in TAPD, optionally link it to a requirement, and set assignee, priority, severity, module, iteration, custom fields, and more.

Instructions

在 TAPD 中创建一个已确认的新 bug,可选关联到指定需求,支持设置处理人、优先级、严重程度、模块、版本、迭代、排期、各类人员(测试/开发/参与人等)、工时、模板、自定义字段等。创建前建议先用 tapd_search_users 确认处理人的 nick;不传处理人则默认指派给当前登录用户。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNo可选,抄送人。与处理人同为 TAPD 用户 nick,参考 current_owner 格式,多个以分号分隔(如 a;b;)
deNo可选,开发人员 TAPD nick
osNo可选,操作系统
teNo可选,测试人员 TAPD nick
dueNo可选,预计结束日期(YYYY-MM-DD)
sizeNo可选,规模
beginNo可选,预计开始日期(YYYY-MM-DD)
fixerNo可选,修复人 TAPD nick
labelNo可选,标签,不存在时自动创建,多个以英文竖线(|)分隔
titleYes缺陷标题
closerNo可选,关闭人 TAPD nick
effortNo可选,预估工时
moduleNo可选,所属模块
sourceNo可选,缺陷根源
auditerNo可选,审核人 TAPD nick
bugtypeNo可选,缺陷类型
featureNo可选,特性
deadlineNo可选,解决期限(YYYY-MM-DD)
estimateNo可选,预计解决时间
platformNo可选,软件平台
severityNo可选,严重程度,需使用当前项目支持的 TAPD 严重程度值
story_idNo可选,需求 ID;传入后会在缺陷创建成功后关联到该需求
testmodeNo可选,测试方式
testtypeNo可选,测试类型
confirmedYes必须为 true,表示用户已明确确认创建该 TAPD bug
confirmerNo可选,验证人 TAPD nick
frequencyNo可选,重现规律
testphaseNo可选,测试阶段
release_idNo可选,发布计划 ID
resolutionNo可选,解决方法
descriptionYes缺陷详细描述,支持 TAPD 富文本 HTML
originphaseNo可选,发现阶段
sourcephaseNo可选,引入阶段
template_idNo可选,模板 ID。从缺陷模板创建时使用
version_fixNo可选,合入版本
iteration_idNo可选,迭代 ID
participatorNo可选,参与人。与处理人同为 TAPD 用户 nick,多个以分号分隔(如 a;b;)
version_testNo可选,验证版本
workspace_idYesTAPD 项目 ID(必填)。可先用 tapd_list_bugs / tapd_list_stories 跨项目查询,或 tapd_list_workspaces 获取目标项目 ID
baseline_findNo可选,发现基线
baseline_joinNo可选,合入基线
baseline_testNo可选,验证基线
custom_fieldsNo可选,自定义字段透传。key 为 TAPD 字段名(custom_field_*、cus_* 或 custom_plan_field_*),原样提交;具体字段名通过 TAPD 自定义字段配置接口获取
version_closeNo可选,关闭版本
baseline_closeNo可选,关闭基线
current_ownersNo可选,缺陷处理人 TAPD nick 列表;建议先调用 tapd_search_users 确认
priority_labelNo可选,优先级标识,推荐使用此字段以兼容自定义优先级(如 High/Medium/Low)
version_reportNo可选,发现版本
is_apply_template_default_valueNo可选,是否从模板继承默认值(仅 0/1,1 继承),需配合 template_id
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions creation and optional story linking, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, idempotency, or any destructive side effects. The 'confirmed' boolean is noted, but overall transparency is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and covers key capabilities without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no wasted text.

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 49 parameters and no output schema, the description covers high-level capabilities and common fields well. The rich schema fills in the details. However, it omits context about return values, error handling, and required permissions, which would improve completeness for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by summarizing common fields and providing a workflow hint (use tapd_search_users), but it does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 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 verb '创建' (create) and the resource 'bug' in TAPD, distinguishing it from sibling tools like tapd_list_bugs and tapd_create_story. It also lists key configurable fields, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides a specific usage guideline: suggesting users call tapd_search_users to confirm handler nicknames before creation, and noting the default assignment if no handler is provided. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of alternatives like tapd_create_story.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/sun-jingtao/tapd-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server