Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TAPD MCP Server

TAPD MCP Server

by sun-jingtao
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

批量获取 TAPD bug 详情

tapd_get_bugs
Read-only

Batch fetch complete details of TAPD bugs, including descriptions, reproduction steps, comments, attachments, and workflow status.

Instructions

批量获取多个 TAPD bug 的完整内容，包括描述、复现步骤、评论、附件、图片和视频等详细信息。状态会附带项目工作流中文名（如「已解决（resolved）」）

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": {
      "bug_ids": "<bug_ids>",
      "workspace_id": "<workspace_id>"
    },
    "name": "tapd_get_bugs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bug_idsYesTAPD bug ID 列表，单次最多 10 个
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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.8

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the returned content (descriptions, steps, comments, attachments, images, videos) and that status includes workflow display name. No side effects or permissions mentioned, but readOnly is covered.

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?

Two sentences: first states core action, second adds a specific output detail. No redundant words, front-loaded, efficient.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a get-tool with 2 simple params and no output schema, the description adequately lists the types of content returned (descriptions, steps, comments, attachments, etc.) and a notable formatting detail. Covers necessary information.

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%, with descriptions for both bug_ids and workspace_id. The description adds minimal parameter info beyond the schema; the main added value is about output (status format). Baseline 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 tool's purpose: batch get TAPD bug details, listing specific content types (description, steps, comments, attachments, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like tapd_list_bugs (likely summary) and tapd_list_bug_changes (history).

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 when-not-to-use guidance. The workspace_id parameter description hints at using other tools to find workspace IDs, but no differentiation from sibling tools like tapd_list_bugs for listing vs. detailed get.

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