The issue tracker AI coding agents pull work from: atomic claims, dependency-aware dispatch.
Glama couldn't complete the latest health check. If this server requires authentication, missing or expired test credentials may be the cause. A test profile lets Glama authenticate for health checks and discover tools; it is separate from your personal connections.
If you are the author, claim ownership, then add or update a test profile under Admin → Test Profile.
Scored across 1 tool
With only one tool exposed there is no possibility of misselection, so ambiguity is effectively zero. However, the single tool's description is a dense wall of setup instructions that conflates what the tool does with how the caller should behave, so clarity is moderate rather than perfect.
setup_status follows a readable snake_case noun_qualifier convention, but with a single name there is no pattern to be consistent with, so this dimension is essentially unassessable. No deviation or chaos is present.
One tool is far too few for any real task surface, even accounting for the stated bootstrap gate where binding later loads the rest. An agent receiving this server can perform no domain work until an out-of-band credential flow completes.
The surface contains no CRUD or lifecycle operations whatsoever, and the description never reveals what domain Retasc actually covers once bound. An agent cannot accomplish anything beyond printing an approve URL, and cannot even reason about what will be missing.
No Retasc credential has reached this connection yet, so this is the only tool available and the only one that will work. Call it and follow what it returns. If your Retasc connection was added by URL in a platform's settings (a hosted agent, a claude.ai connector) rather than read from a config file on this machine, do NOT run bind: your human mints a key with npx @retasc/cli@latest key mint --hosted --org-id <org> --project-id <project> and adds it to that connection as the header Authorization: Bearer <key>. Otherwise, in short: YOU run npx @retasc/cli@latest bind --json in this folder, in the background, having first told your human that a browser is about to open. Post the approve URL it prints to them as a link, act on what it reports back, and when it finishes ask them to restart you so the rest of the tools load. The click and the restart are theirs; everything else is yours.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that this is the sole working tool, that a browser will open, that the human must click and restart, and what to do in the hosted case. The main gap is that it does not describe the format or fields of what the tool returns, despite instructing the agent to 'follow what it returns.'
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 scoping point (only tool available, only one that works) is front-loaded, but the rest is a dense run-on block that embeds shell commands, a URL path, and a header format in prose. Much of it is genuinely necessary workflow, yet it could be structured more cleanly into a call-then-branch layout.
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?
For a zero-param, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns — that is exactly the thing the agent is told to act on, and it is absent. The workflow guidance is otherwise thorough, but the missing return-value framing leaves a real hole.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies; no parameter semantics are needed or missing.
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 conveys the situation (no credential yet, this is the only tool available) and directs the agent to 'call it and follow what it returns,' but it never says what the tool actually does or returns — it reads as a bootstrap workflow rather than a status check. The verb+resource is implied as 'report setup/binding status' but never stated.
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?
It gives explicit when-to-use (the only tool available), a clear when-NOT branch (hosted/URL connections must not run bind; the human mints a key instead), and step-by-step sequencing for the local case. Almost nothing about routing or timing is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
accept_inviteadd_relationbilling_summarycheck_claimcheckpointclaim_ghostclaim_issuedismiss_ghost_promptget_attachmentget_attachment_fileget_issueget_projectheartbeatimport_historylatest_importlist_attachmentslist_claimable_ghostslist_commentslist_connectorslist_import_sourceslist_import_statuseslist_import_targetslist_issueslist_labelslist_memberslist_projectslist_review_candidatesmint_session_keynext_batchnext_issueobsolete_attachmentprepare_attachment_uploadqueue_statusreactivate_memberrelease_issueremove_relationretire_memberretract_commentrevoke_connectorrun_importsave_attachmentsave_attachment_filesave_commentsave_issuesave_labelsuspend_memberusage_summarywhoamiclaim_ghostdismiss_ghost_promptlist_claimable_ghostsimport_historylatest_importlist_import_sourceslist_import_statuseslist_import_targetslist_review_candidatesrun_importsetup_statusaccept_inviteget_attachment_filesave_attachment_fileclaim_issue1 field changedInput schema / properties / claimTokenAdded value: +{
+ "description": "ONLY to resume your own claim after a restart: the claim_token from before, which moves that live lease onto this session. Omit when claiming new work. It proves you are the same agent continuing — a session that never held the issue doesn't have it, and it can never move a claim to a different agent.",
+ "type": "string"
+}save_issue2 fields changedInput schema / properties / assignee / descriptionPrevious value: -"Responsible human (routing lane, distinct from claiming): a human member name, 'me', or '' to unassign. Optional for most statuses — unassigned issues stay in the global pull pool — but REQUIRED whenever the write leaves the issue in `review` (RTSC-347 + RTSC-400), including a CREATE with `status:\"review\"` (which records YOU as the submitter, so the assignee must be a different active principal). While an issue sits in `review`, '' does NOT unassign: clearing it, or naming the submitter's own principal or a suspended/retired member, is rejected even on a write that never mentions `status`. Send it back with `status:\"todo\"` first if you want it unassigned."New value: +"Responsible human (routing lane, distinct from claiming): a human member name, 'me', or '' to unassign. Optional for most statuses — unassigned issues stay in the global pull pool — but REQUIRED whenever the write leaves the issue in `review` (RTSC-347 + RTSC-400), including a CREATE with `status:\"review\"` (which records YOU as the submitter, so the assignee must be a different active principal). While an issue sits in `review`, '' does NOT unassign: clearing it, or naming the submitter's own principal, a suspended/retired member, or a placeholder nobody has signed in as (left by an import or a restore), is rejected even on a write that never mentions `status`. Send it back with `status:\"todo\"` first if you want it unassigned."Input schema / properties / status / descriptionPrevious value: -"`review` (RTSC-257) = work finished, pending human acceptance: it still BLOCKS dependents (unlike done) and releases your lease so a reviewer can claim it. `assignee` is REQUIRED on every write that LEAVES the issue in `review` (RTSC-347 + RTSC-400) — name the reviewer's human lane, an ACTIVE member who is a DIFFERENT principal than whoever submitted it (author ≠ reviewer). It is a property of the STATE, not of the transition: it applies when you move an issue to review, when you CREATE one with `status:\"review\"`, and to any later write that changes a live review's assignee — including a write that names no `status` at all. So `assignee:\"\"` can't clear a live review's reviewer, and it can't be re-pointed at the submitter or at a suspended/retired member: a review parked on a lane nobody can claim strands, non-terminal, blocking its dependents. To unassign, send it back first (`status:\"todo\"`). The reviewer's agent then promotes it (`status:done`, unblocks dependents) or sends it back (`status:todo` + a comment). Whether to use review is your team's convention; that it must be assigned is not."New value: +"`review` (RTSC-257) = work finished, pending human acceptance: it still BLOCKS dependents (unlike done) and releases your lease so a reviewer can claim it. `assignee` is REQUIRED on every write that LEAVES the issue in `review` (RTSC-347 + RTSC-400) — name the reviewer's human lane, an ACTIVE member who is a DIFFERENT principal than whoever submitted it (author ≠ reviewer). It is a property of the STATE, not of the transition: it applies when you move an issue to review, when you CREATE one with `status:\"review\"`, and to any later write that changes a live review's assignee — including a write that names no `status` at all. So `assignee:\"\"` can't clear a live review's reviewer, and it can't be re-pointed at the submitter, at a suspended/retired member, or at a member nobody has ever signed in as (an unclaimed placeholder left behind by an import or a restore — RTSC-408): a review parked on a lane nobody can claim strands, non-terminal, blocking its dependents. To unassign, send it back first (`status:\"todo\"`). The reviewer's agent then promotes it (`status:done`, unblocks dependents) or sends it back (`status:todo` + a comment). Whether to use review is your team's convention; that it must be assigned is not."save_issue2 fields changedInput schema / properties / assignee / descriptionPrevious value: -"Responsible human (routing lane, distinct from claiming): a human member name, 'me', or '' to unassign. Optional for most statuses — unassigned issues stay in the global pull pool — but REQUIRED when `status:\"review\"` (RTSC-347): a review must name a different-principal reviewer or it's rejected."New value: +"Responsible human (routing lane, distinct from claiming): a human member name, 'me', or '' to unassign. Optional for most statuses — unassigned issues stay in the global pull pool — but REQUIRED whenever the write leaves the issue in `review` (RTSC-347 + RTSC-400), including a CREATE with `status:\"review\"` (which records YOU as the submitter, so the assignee must be a different active principal). While an issue sits in `review`, '' does NOT unassign: clearing it, or naming the submitter's own principal or a suspended/retired member, is rejected even on a write that never mentions `status`. Send it back with `status:\"todo\"` first if you want it unassigned."Input schema / properties / status / descriptionPrevious value: -"`review` (RTSC-257) = work finished, pending human acceptance: it still BLOCKS dependents (unlike done) and releases your lease so a reviewer can claim it. `assignee` is REQUIRED when moving to `review` (RTSC-347) — name the reviewer's human lane, an ACTIVE member who is a DIFFERENT principal than whoever submitted it (author ≠ reviewer). A review with no assignee, or one assigned to a suspended/retired member, is rejected: such a review is invisible to every lane AND locks the submitter out (they can't claim their own review back), so the work would strand. The reviewer's agent then promotes it (`status:done`, unblocks dependents) or sends it back (`status:todo` + a comment). Whether to use review is your team's convention; that it must be assigned is not."New value: +"`review` (RTSC-257) = work finished, pending human acceptance: it still BLOCKS dependents (unlike done) and releases your lease so a reviewer can claim it. `assignee` is REQUIRED on every write that LEAVES the issue in `review` (RTSC-347 + RTSC-400) — name the reviewer's human lane, an ACTIVE member who is a DIFFERENT principal than whoever submitted it (author ≠ reviewer). It is a property of the STATE, not of the transition: it applies when you move an issue to review, when you CREATE one with `status:\"review\"`, and to any later write that changes a live review's assignee — including a write that names no `status` at all. So `assignee:\"\"` can't clear a live review's reviewer, and it can't be re-pointed at the submitter or at a suspended/retired member: a review parked on a lane nobody can claim strands, non-terminal, blocking its dependents. To unassign, send it back first (`status:\"todo\"`). The reviewer's agent then promotes it (`status:done`, unblocks dependents) or sends it back (`status:todo` + a comment). Whether to use review is your team's convention; that it must be assigned is not."Coding agents from Claude Code, Cursor and Codex claim jobs and lock files on one shared board.
Task tracking built for coding agents. Work is leased, so two agents never take the same SubTask.
Task management for teams building with AI agents. Agents claim tasks and report progress.
Track issues, projects and dependencies with your agent in a workspace you control.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
