mcptask.online

GetWorkloadTool

Read-only

Open assigned work per user, account-wide or for one project or user: status (busy = something in progress or waiting; idle = only blocked or nothing), counts {inprogress, waiting, blocked, open}, hours {best, worst, worked_out} (day 7 h), in-progress pieces and a per-project split; project members with no open work are listed as idle. Counts Tasks and assigned Stories.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "account_code": "<account_code>"
    },
    "name": "GetWorkloadTool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`user_id`	No	Only this assignee (user id)
`account_code`	Yes	Account code (e.g., "bcp", "jchsoft")
`include_pieces`	No	Add each user's open pieces as compact rows, defaults to false
`project_relative_id`	No	Only this project; every readable project of the account when omitted

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, it defines the semantics an agent actually needs: what busy vs idle mean, the exact counts produced, the hours fields {best, worst, worked_out}, the 7h day basis, and that only Tasks and assigned Stories are counted. This is substantive behavioral disclosure rather than restated safety hints.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then parenthetical definitions and output composition. It is dense and efficient with no filler, though the single long sentence with multiple nested parentheses is harder to scan than a lightly structured version.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so well (counts, hours, pieces, per-project split, idle members). The small gap is the include_pieces flag, which is never explicitly tied to the 'in-progress pieces' output, leaving one parameter's effect implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the scoping behavior ('account-wide or for one project or user') and that idle members are still listed, but does not explicitly map to include_pieces or project_relative_id, so it stays at the schema-baseline level.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Open assigned work per user') plus the exact scoping options (account-wide, one project, or one user). The agent can immediately tell this apart from piece/project listing siblings such as ListPiecesTool or GetProjectTreeTool.

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 implies the use case (per-user workload assessment) and explains the scoping choices, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not or names no alternative tool for adjacent needs like listing pieces or project trees. The agent must infer selection.

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

All mcptask.online tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?