Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-taskflow

mcp-taskflow

by CalebGerman
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

verify_task

Confirm a task is finished by submitting a score and summary; marks it completed so your task plan stays accurate.

Instructions

Verify task completion with a score and summary. Marks task as completed.

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": {
      "taskId": "<taskId>",
      "score": "<score>",
      "summary": "<summary>"
    },
    "name": "verify_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scoreYes
taskIdYes
summaryYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key side effect ('Marks task as completed'), but says nothing about whether this state change is reversible, whether it requires the task to already be in a particular state, or whether repeated verification overwrites a prior score.

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?

Two short sentences, zero padding, with the primary action front-loaded before the side effect. It is appropriately sized, though being that terse is part of why behavioral detail is missing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves too much open: the meaning of the score, the state transitions implied by completion, and any auth or preconditions. It is not adequate for the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and does not. It names 'score' and 'summary' but never explains the 0–100 scale, what a passing score means, what the summary should contain, or that taskId must be a UUID identifying the task to verify.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Verify task completion' plus the side effect 'Marks task as completed.' An agent can distinguish it from read siblings like get_task_detail or list_tasks, though it is not explicitly differentiated from update_task, which could plausibly perform the same state change.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., must the task be in-progress or executed first?), and never names an alternative such as update_task for less formal status changes. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools