Skip to main content
Glama

TaScan

by io.github.snowbikemike

tascan_get_scan_history

Read-onlyIdempotent

Scan accountability data. Two modes: (1) tag_id — scans of a registered NFC tag; (2) task_list_id or project_id — every QR/link page-open stamp: when the code was scanned, GPS + IP + channel (qr/nfc/sms/email/link), who the scanner turned out to be, and the scan→start delta (how long between scanning and actually identifying + starting work — the sign-in-and-vanish metric).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results (default 50, max 200)
sinceNoISO timestamp — only scans after this
sourceNoFilter page scans by channel: qr | nfc | sms | email | link | unknown
tag_idNoNFC tag registry ID (from tascan_list_tags) — tag mode
project_idNoProject ID — page-scan mode, all lists in the project
task_list_idNoTask list ID — page-scan mode

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by enumerating returned fields (GPS + IP + channel, scanner identity, scan→start delta) and explaining the 'sign-in-and-vanish' metric. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, then structured into two clear modes. However, it reads as a single long run-on sentence with many nested parentheticals, which slightly hurts scannability. No wasted words, but the structure could be cleaner.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of explaining return data, and it does so well: timestamp, GPS+IP, channel, scanner identity, and the delta metric. It does not explicitly state whether combining tag_id with task_list_id/project_id is invalid, and it omits ordering/pagination behavior, but the schema covers limit and filters, making this adequate for a read-only tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already self-documenting. The description adds some meaning by linking tag_id to mode 1 and task_list_id/project_id to mode 2, but this largely mirrors the schema's own parameter descriptions. It does not materially deepen parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific resource (scan accountability data) and immediately breaks it into two concrete modes: NFC tag scans and QR/link page-open stamps. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by detailing the exact data returned (GPS, IP, channel, scanner identity, scan→start delta), so an agent can tell it apart from history/listing variants.

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?

The two-mode structure gives clear selection guidance: pass tag_id for registered NFC tag scans, or task_list_id/project_id for page-scan data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the mode differentiation is strong enough for an agent to select correctly.

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