Skip to main content
Glama

nucleus

by io.github.eidetic-works

Task Management

nucleus_tasks

Task management, depth tracking & ADHD context-switch tools.

Actions: list - List tasks. params: {status?, priority?, skill?, claimed_by?, required_role?} get_next - Get highest-priority unblocked task. params: {skills, required_role?} claim - Atomically claim a task. params: {task_id, agent_id} update - Update task fields. params: {task_id, updates} add - Create a new task. params: {description, priority?, blocked_by?, required_skills?, source?, task_id?, skip_dep_check?, required_role?, plan_ref?} (alias: "create") import_jsonl - Import tasks from JSONL. params: {jsonl_path, clear_existing?, merge_gtm_metadata?} escalate - Escalate task for human help. params: {task_id, reason} depth_push - Go deeper into subtopic. params: {topic} depth_pop - Come back up one level depth_show - Show current depth state depth_reset - Reset depth to root depth_set_max - Set max safe depth. params: {max_depth} depth_map - Generate exploration map context_switch - Record context switch / ADHD drift check. params: {new_context} context_switch_status - Get context switch metrics context_switch_reset - Reset context switch counter

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYes
paramsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds some behavioral details (e.g., 'Atomically claim', 'Go deeper into subtopic') but lacks information on permission requirements, side effects of updates, or the effect of depth actions on tasks.

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 description is a long list that, while organized by action, is verbose and could be more concise. Each action's line includes both explanation and parameters, but the overall structure is adequate.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple sub-actions, depth tracking, context-switching), the description covers all actions and their parameters. An output schema exists, so return values are not required. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand the scope and usage of each sub-action.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description provides parameter names and optionality (e.g., 'params: {status?, priority?, skill?, claimed_by?, required_role?}') for each action, adding significant meaning beyond the generic input schema that only defines 'action' and 'params'.

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 covers 'Task management, depth tracking & ADHD context-switch tools' and lists specific sub-actions with verb+resource patterns (e.g., 'claim - Atomically claim a task'), making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like nucleus_agents or nucleus_audit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply enumerates actions without explaining when each sub-action is appropriate or how it relates to other nucleus_ tools.

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

All nucleus 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped by domain with detailed descriptions, but some overlap exists (e.g., multiple relay-related tools like nucleus_relay, nucleus_relay_subscribe, nucleus_next_message). Overall, most tools have distinct purposes, and descriptions help disambiguate.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the 'nucleus_' prefix with a consistent noun-like second part (e.g., nucleus_agents, nucleus_audit, nucleus_delegate). Even compound names like nucleus_lane_feedback maintain the pattern, with no mixing of conventions.

Tool Count3/5

With 28 tools, the count is on the higher end but still justifiable given the broad scope of an agent operating system. The tools cover many necessary functions, though the set could be slightly trimmed for focus.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers most aspects of an agent OS: agents, audit, delegation, memory, features, federation, governance, infra, lanes, messaging, orchestration, plans, relay, routing, sessions, slots, sync, tasks, telemetry. Minor gaps like a dedicated config tool are absent but not critical.

Resources