Skip to main content
Glama

Mob (Demo)

by io.github.benkaiser

task_manage

Create, list, update, complete, delete, or restore tasks. • action="create": Create a task. Requires title. Optional description, contact_id, due_date, priority. • action="list": List tasks. Optional contact_id, status, priority, page, per_page, include_deleted. • action="update": Update a task. Requires id. Optional title, description, contact_id, due_date, priority, status. • action="complete": Mark a task as completed. Requires id. • action="delete": Soft-delete a task. Requires id. • action="restore": Restore a soft-deleted task. Requires id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoThe task ID (required for "update", "complete", "delete", "restore")
pageNoPage number for "list" (default: 1)
titleNoTask title (required for "create", optional for "update")
actionYesAction to perform
statusNoStatus (optional for "update", filter for "list")
due_dateNoDue date (ISO date, optional for "create" and "update")
per_pageNoResults per page for "list" (default: 20)
priorityNoPriority (optional for "create"/"update", filter for "list")
contact_idNoLink to a contact (optional for "create"/"update", filter for "list")
descriptionNoDescription (optional for "create" and "update")
include_deletedNoInclude soft-deleted tasks in "list" results (default: false)

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: delete is 'Soft-delete' and restore is for 'soft-deleted' tasks, with list supporting include_deleted. It does not mention return values or error conditions, but the disclosed behaviors are meaningful for an agent.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured with a summary line followed by six focused bullets. Every sentence adds actionable information with no fluff or redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description fully covers all six actions, their required/optional params, and soft-delete behavior. However, with no output schema, it omits expected return values or success/failure indicators, leaving a minor gap for agents needing response context.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by organizing parameters under each action, clarifying which are required for specific operations (e.g., 'delete' requires id, 'create' requires title). This action-level grouping goes beyond the flat schema descriptions.

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 opening line 'Create, list, update, complete, delete, or restore tasks' uses specific verbs and a clear resource, fully describing the tool's scope. The action enum distinguishes it from sibling tools like contact_update or note_manage, making its uniqueness obvious.

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?

Each action bullet lists its required and optional parameters, providing clear when-to-use guidance for each sub-operation. The description does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools, but the action-based structure effectively communicates usage context.

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

All Mob (Demo) 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly distinct by entity, but contact_get and contact_timeline overlap significantly, and debt_manage's action='list' duplicates what other entities do with a dedicated list tool. Descriptions are detailed enough to resolve most ambiguity, though.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are mostly snake_case and readable, but they mix conventions: noun_verb (contact_create), verb_noun (batch_create_activities), and descriptive phrases (contacts_needing_attention). The noun_manage pattern is dominant, but the lack of uniformity makes the naming less predictable.

Tool Count2/5

With 42 tools, the surface is very large, even for a full-featured CRM. Many tools bundle multiple actions, but the sheer number forces an agent to consider many options, increasing selection difficulty and cognitive load.

Completeness5/5

The server provides comprehensive CRM coverage: contacts, activities, notes, tasks, reminders, gifts, debts, relationships, tags, custom fields, notifications, settings, and exports. It supports batch operations, duplicate detection, merge, and special queries, leaving few if any obvious gaps.

Resources