Skip to main content
Glama

List Task Budget Links

list_task_budget_links
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read budget line items linked to a site task. MCP approval requirements are configurable by the organization administrator; business workflow approvals always apply.

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": {
      "taskId": "<taskId>"
    },
    "name": "list_task_budget_links"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
limitNo
offsetNo
taskIdYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already state that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds approval-related context, but it is vague and does not explain how approvals affect this read operation or what is returned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first sentence is front-loaded and states the core purpose efficiently. The second sentence about approval requirements is concise but somewhat tangential for a read-only listing tool and may not earn its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has four parameters with no schema descriptions, and the description does not fill that parameter gap. Although annotations and an output schema reduce the burden, the definition still lacks enough context about filtering, pagination, and relationship direction for an agent to invoke it confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for four undocumented parameters. It hints that a site task is involved, likely corresponding to taskId, but it does not explain id, limit, offset, or how the optional id relates to the required taskId.

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 states a specific read operation and resource: budget line items linked to a site task. It clearly implies the direction of the relationship, though it does not name the inverse sibling list_budget_line_item_tasks or explicitly distinguish itself from link/unlink tools.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_budget_line_item_tasks, link_task_budget_line_item, or unlink_task_budget_line_item. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the phrase 'linked to a site task'.

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.

Resources