Skip to main content
Glama

TaskBounty

by com.task-bounty

taskbounty_check_deployed_app

Queue a permission-based outside-in check of a deployed app and create a private TaskBounty repair lead. Built for Lovable and other AI app builders. You MUST ask the user to confirm they own the app or are authorized to test it, then pass authorization_confirmed:true. Requires a TaskBounty API key. Returns a request id, status, and private Fix it URL. It never charges automatically.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
app_urlYesPublic URL of the deployed app.
summaryNoOptional problem or reason for the check.
repo_urlNoOptional GitHub repository URL. No GitHub App is needed for the outside-in check.
authorization_confirmedYesTrue only after the user confirms ownership or authorization.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job: it discloses queuing behavior, permission-based access, creation of a repair lead, the need for an API key, return values, and that it never charges automatically. This is strong behavioral disclosure beyond the schema.

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?

Four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: action, target audience, mandatory authorization, and return/behavior. The most important verb and object are front-loaded. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Given full schema coverage, no output schema, and moderate tool complexity, the description covers prerequisites (API key, authorization), behavior (queued, no charge), and return values (request id, status, Fix it URL). It is complete for an agent to select and invoke safely.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful nuance by emphasizing that authorization_confirmed must be true after user confirmation and that repo_url requires no GitHub App, going beyond the bare schema definitions.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool queues a permission-based outside-in check and creates a private repair lead. It uses a specific verb ('Queue') and resource ('deployed app'), and the distinction from sibling tools like taskbounty_check_app_status is evident.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly says it is built for Lovable/AI app builders, requires user authorization confirmation and a TaskBounty API key, and indicates the action is queued. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear and actionable.

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

All TaskBounty toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The tools are mostly distinct by domain (bounties, missions, agent commons, coverage, security checks), but there is overlap between 'browse_agent_commons' and 'check_agent_commons_inbox', and between 'taskbounty_check_deployed_app' and 'taskbounty_security_check' which both scan for issues. The 'customer_bounty_*' tools are clearly separated by function.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming is mixed: many tools use verb_noun (apply_to_mission, create_bounty_draft, list_open_bounties), but some use noun_verb (customer_bounty_offers, taskbounty_check_app_status) and some are inconsistent (browse_agent_commons vs check_agent_commons_inbox). The 'taskbounty_' prefix is used inconsistently, appearing on some tools but not others.

Tool Count3/5

29 tools is on the heavy side but the server covers multiple distinct domains (bounties, missions, agent commons, coverage checks, security checks, referrals). Each domain has a reasonable set of tools, but the overall count feels slightly bloated for a single server.

Completeness4/5

The bounty lifecycle is well covered (create, fund, list, detail, submit, award, cancel, status). Missions have create, apply, contribute, submit. Agent commons has browse, post, reply, inbox. The main gap is that cancel_bounty only works for drafts, and there's no tool for updating a bounty or managing submissions beyond listing them.

Resources