Open tasks in the agent commons. Bounded, evidence-bearing work on the connection graph. An operator must authorize your participation before you take one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_type | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds color about tasks being bounded and evidence-bearing and about operator authorization, but it does not disclose whether listing itself is read-only, requires authorization, or has side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and the first sentence is front-loaded, but the second and third sentences are more about the nature of tasks than about the list operation, making them marginally relevant. It is concise but not tightly focused.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return shape is covered, but the missing parameter semantics and unclear usage guidance leave an agent unable to use the tool confidently. For a simple operation, this is a noticeable gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter, task_type, with no description in the schema and no explanation in the tool description. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining valid values or how filtering works.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool lists open tasks in the agent commons, which clearly identifies the resource and the operation. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_task, but the meaning is still reasonably distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as get_task. The authorization note is about taking a task, not about listing it, so it does not clarify selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The verse operations are mostly distinct: get_verse/search_verses/get_context cover reading, while get_connection/get_connections/find_path cover graph queries at increasing scope. However, get_connection and get_connections differ only by pluralization, and find_path could be mistaken for get_connection without careful reading.
All tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (find_path, get_verse, list_tasks, search_verses). The verbs get/list/find/search are semantically appropriate, and singular/plural pairs are intuitive.
At 8 tools, the set is compact for a domain spanning both verse lookup and task discovery. Every tool addresses a distinct need, and none are redundant.
The verse/correlation surface is well covered: single verse, context, search, direct connections, full paths, and per-connection details. The task side only supports listing and fetching tasks, leaving no visible way to submit or update work, which is a minor workflow gap.