Skip to main content
Glama

Read the details of one follow-up task. Use this when the user asks about a specific action item; use listActionItems to see all tasks. Fetches a single action item by `{id}`. The item is only returned if the caller is the assignee or a participant in the parent meeting, so inaccessible ids return 404. Use this to read `status`, `is_completed`, and `due_date` without re-listing.

getActionItem
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read the details of one follow-up task. Use this when the user asks about a specific action item; use listActionItems to see all tasks.

Fetches a single action item by {id}. The item is only returned if the caller is the assignee or a participant in the parent meeting, so inaccessible ids return 404. Use this to read status, is_completed, and due_date without re-listing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesAction Item ID

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
titleNo
statusNo
due_dateNo
created_atNo
meeting_idNo
updated_atNo
descriptionNoLonger description of the action item, in Markdown. Empty when the item has no description.
completed_atNo
is_completedNo
agenda_item_idNo
assigned_to_user_idNo

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe, read-only behavior is fully captured. The description adds value by stating the access control rule (only returned if caller is assignee or participant) and that inaccessible IDs return 404, which is not in annotations. No further behavior (e.g., rate limits, partial results) is needed, making this score appropriate.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first sentence states the purpose, the second provides usage guidelines with sibling reference, the third explains behavior (access control), and the fourth lists key fields to read. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has one simple parameter, high schema coverage, a good annotation set, and an output schema. The description covers purpose, usage guidelines, access control, and key return fields. Given the low complexity and full support from structured fields, nothing is missing.

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 the single `id` parameter as 'Action Item ID'. The description adds nuance by specifying that `id` is expected in `{id}` placeholder notation and that it should be a specific action item ID, but since schema coverage is complete, little extra is needed. Baseline 3 is correct.

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

Purpose2/5

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

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says 'Use this when the user asks about a specific action item; use listActionItems to see all tasks.' This provides a sharp when-to-use/when-not-to-use rule and names the alternative sibling. It also specifies that inaccessible IDs return 404, guiding error handling.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are mostly distinct, with clear separation between meetings, agenda/backlog items, action items, participants, and calendar events. However, `manageMeetingContent` bundles both raw file attachments and AI context documents into one tool, which could cause confusion for an agent deciding which contentType variant to use.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming follows a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., `listMeetings`, `getMeeting`, `deleteUserToken`), but there are minor deviations like `manageMeetingItems` (verb_noun) vs `manageActionItems` (verb_noun) and `getMeetingTranscript` which is consistent, but `getMe` breaks the pattern as a short form. Overall, predictable and well-organized.

Tool Count4/5

With 30 tools, the count is on the higher side but reasonable given the broad domain covering meetings, agenda, backlogs, action items, participants, calendar events, user tokens, and content management. Each tool serves a specific purpose, though a slight reduction by combining some closely related functions could improve focus.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core lifecycle for meetings, agenda/backlog items, action items, participants, and content management. Minor gaps exist, such as the lack of tools for managing meeting templates (only listed, not created/deleted) and no tool for sending invitations via email, but these are not critical for the main use cases.

Resources