Skip to main content
Glama
AndersHsueh

AX Local Operations MCP Server

by AndersHsueh

task_manager

Destructive

Manage tasks by creating, updating, completing, listing, or clearing them. Supports priorities, due dates, subtasks, and progress tracking for organized workflow management.

Instructions

任务管理:创建、更新、完成、列出和清空任务。支持优先级、截止日期、子任务和进度跟踪。

示例:创建任务 { "operation": "create", "model_name": "claude", "title": "完成文档", "priority": "high" } 示例:更新进度 { "operation": "update", "model_name": "claude", "task_id": "xxx", "progress": 50 }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
operationYes操作类型:create(创建)、read(读取)、update(更新)、delete(删除)、list(列表)
model_nameYes模型名称,用于任务隔离存储
task_idNo任务ID,用于更新或完成特定任务
titleNo任务标题
descriptionNo任务详细描述
priorityNo任务优先级:low(低)、medium(中)、high(高)、urgent(紧急)
due_dateNo任务截止日期,ISO 8601格式
progressNo任务完成进度(0-100)
subtasksNo子任务列表
output_formatNo输出格式:text(纯文本)、json(结构化JSON)、both(两者兼有)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tasksNo任务列表
operationNo执行的操作
created_task_idNo创建的任务ID
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it mentions support for '优先级、截止日期、子任务和进度跟踪' (priority, due dates, subtasks, and progress tracking), which clarifies behavioral capabilities. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true (consistent with operations like clear), but the description doesn't contradict them—it complements by detailing what operations are available.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is reasonably concise with two sentences and examples, but it could be more front-loaded. The first sentence lists operations, and the second adds features, but the examples are helpful yet slightly verbose. It's adequate but not optimally structured.

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's complexity (10 parameters, multiple operations) and rich annotations/output schema, the description provides a good overview. It covers key operations and features, though it could better integrate with the structured data. The examples enhance understanding, making it fairly complete for context.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add significant semantic details beyond the schema, but the examples illustrate usage of some parameters (e.g., operation, model_name, title, priority, progress). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as '任务管理:创建、更新、完成、列出和清空任务' (Task management: create, update, complete, list, and clear tasks), which is specific about the operations it supports. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings (all file and system tools), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions features like priority and due dates but doesn't explain context or prerequisites. The examples show usage patterns but don't offer explicit when/when-not instructions.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/AndersHsueh/Ax-LocalTools-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server