Skip to main content
Glama

TaScan

by io.github.snowbikemike

tascan_invite_worker

Invite a marketplace worker to a task list — the consented intro. TaScan texts the worker from its own number (" wants you for . Reply YES to share your contact and get the list, or NO to pass."). On YES the worker appears in your org with their name + phone, receives the list link, and you get a text + a thread message. On NO or silence (7 days) you never learn who they were. Use the worker_id from tascan_search_marketplace.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
list_idYesTask list you want them on
messageNoOptional short intro prepended to the text (max 240 chars)
worker_idYesworker_id from a marketplace card

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses the full consent flow: TaScan texts from its own number, the exact SMS wording, the YES/NO/silence outcomes, the 7-day expiry, and the privacy guarantee that declined workers remain unknown. This goes well beyond the sparse annotations.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and the rest is a tight sequence of consent mechanics, outcomes, and source guidance. The quoted SMS text is illustrative without bloating the description.

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?

Even with no output schema, the description covers the workflow, timing, privacy boundary, and expected aftermath for both the worker and the inviter. An agent has enough to call the tool correctly and understand its consequences.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by tying worker_id specifically to tascan_search_marketplace and revealing how the optional message is prepended to the consent text.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Invite a marketplace worker to a task list.' The phrase 'the consented intro' distinguishes this from direct worker creation or plain SMS tools, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 to use 'the worker_id from tascan_search_marketplace,' which provides clear sourcing guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives for existing org workers, but the context strongly implies it is specifically for marketplace-worker invitations.

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