Skip to main content
Glama

TaScan

by io.github.snowbikemike

tascan_request_payment

Pledge a payment on a task list: when the list is verified complete (every task done + photo evidence on photo-required tasks), the payer automatically receives a Stripe pay link that routes the money DIRECTLY to the worker (0% TaScan fee). No money moves and no card is stored at pledge time. The worker must have completed payout onboarding (Get Paid on their profile).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
memoNoWhat the payment is for (shown to the payer)
worker_idYesWorker who gets paid
payer_nameNo
payer_emailYesWho pays — receives the pay link on verification
amount_centsYesAmount in cents ($1 min, $10,000 max)
task_list_idYesTask list the payment is tied to

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description fully discloses behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it confirms no money moves at pledge time, no card is stored, the payment is direct to the worker with 0% fee, and a Stripe pay link is generated upon verification. This aligns with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, adding valuable context about side effects.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second explains the verification trigger and fee structure, and the third outlines a prerequisite. No redundant or vague language, well front-loaded.

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 has no output schema, the description could explain the API response (e.g., returns a pledge ID). It covers the user-facing outcome (Stripe link sent) but omits what the caller receives synchronously. Still, for a pledged payment creation tool, it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 83% (5 of 6 parameters described). The description reiterates the amount range already in the schema and adds context about the overall flow, but it does not add new meaning for individual parameters like memo, payer_name, or worker_id beyond what the schema provides. The marginal value is limited, keeping the score at baseline.

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 uses the specific verb 'pledge' combined with 'payment on a task list', clearly distinguishing this tool from all siblings. No other sibling tool handles payment pledging, and the description explains the conditional release mechanism, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description outlines the flow: pledge occurs when the list is verified complete, worker must have completed payout onboarding, and the payer receives a Stripe link. It provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., direct payment) or state when not to use it.

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