Skip to main content
Glama

List Task Dependents

list_task_dependents
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read following task dependencies including date effects and offsets. 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_dependents"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskIdYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior. The description adds a minor return-content hint ('date effects and offsets'), but the approval sentence is irrelevant boilerplate for a read operation and may mislead an agent into thinking approvals gate this call.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is short and useful. The second sentence is organizational approval boilerplate that does not earn its place in a tool description for a read-only list operation.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a single-parameter read tool, the definition is minimally viable, but it leaves the dependents-vs-dependencies distinction and the required taskId unexplained.

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 should compensate for the required taskId parameter. It does not mention taskId at all, leaving the sole parameter's meaning entirely to the schema field name and UUID format.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description gives a read verb and a resource ('task dependencies') and hints at returned data ('date effects and offsets'). However, it uses 'dependencies' while the tool is 'dependents' and never distinguishes this from the sibling list_task_dependencies, leaving direction ambiguity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_task_dependencies, list_task_children, or create_task_dependency. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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