Skip to main content
Glama

TaScan

by io.github.snowbikemike

tascan_dispatch_instruction

Step 3 of the Closed-Loop Autonomous Operations Protocol. Dispatches remediation to the worker via MULTI-CHANNEL delivery: (1) issue thread message, (2) in-app notification, (3) progress feed update, (4) SMS if phone on file, (5) optional remediation task list creation. Closes the loop from digital AI analysis to physical worker execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ai_agentNoName of the AI agent dispatching (default: TaScan AI)
issue_idYesIssue ID this instruction relates to
send_smsNoSend SMS to worker (default: true if phone on file)
worker_idNoTarget worker ID (defaults to the worker who reported the issue)
instructionYesClear, actionable instruction for the worker to execute
remediation_tasksNoOptional array of tasks to create as a remediation task list. Each: { title, description, response_type, requires_photo, is_safety_checkpoint, sort_order }
recommendation_summaryNoOne-line summary for the task list description

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses the tool's multi-channel effects (thread message, notification, feed update, SMS, task creation), which goes beyond the annotations that only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. This gives the agent critical context about side effects such as SMS delivery and optional task creation, enhancing behavioral transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then detailing the specific channels. Each element earns its place; the channel list is necessary and concise. No filler.

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?

For a 7-parameter dispatch tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and side effects. It lacks information about return values or error conditions, but these are not typically required in a tool description. The protocol context adds completeness, though it could explicitly mention what happens after dispatch.

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

Parameters3/5

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

All 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is met. The tool description adds context about remediation_tasks ('optional remediation task list creation') and send_sms ('SMS if phone on file'), but these are also covered in the schema descriptions. The description does not significantly clarify parameter formats or relationships beyond the schema.

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 dispatches remediation to a worker via multi-channel delivery, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tascan_dispatch_to_agent by explicitly specifying 'to the worker' and listing concrete delivery channels.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides context as 'Step 3 of the Closed-Loop Autonomous Operations Protocol,' implying it is used after analysis and recommendation, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like tascan_dispatch_to_agent or tascan_send_task_email. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

All TaScan 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools map to a distinct resource+action pair, and the descriptions clearly separate entities like tasks, subtasks, workers, invoices, zones, assets, and reports. A few close pairs (get_report vs generate_report, dispatch_instruction vs dispatch_to_agent, analyze_issue vs auto_resolve) require careful reading, but the descriptions are detailed enough to disambiguate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority follow a tascan_verb_noun pattern with consistent create/get/list/update/delete verbs. Minor deviations like condition_history, server_info, zone_compliance, and one-word find slightly break the otherwise predictable pattern.

Tool Count1/5

At 69 tools, this is far beyond what an agent can efficiently consider, and it bundles several distinct domains into one MCP surface. Even if each tool is individually useful, the combined set is an extreme mismatch for a coherent tool interface.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers nearly the full lifecycle for projects, events, tasks, subtasks, workers, reports, invoices, zones, assets, issues, and communications. Minor gaps exist (no explicit asset updates/decommissioning, no cancel_invite, no delete_zone), but the main workflows have no dead ends.

Resources