Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
local-context

local-context

by JustinA988
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

run_task

Destructive

Run a named local task and return a capped status, enabling you to trigger predefined or scheduled tasks without external API calls.

Instructions

Run one named task locally and return a capped status.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "run_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesTask name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare this to be non-read-only, open-world, and destructive. The description adds only that execution is local and returns a capped status, but it does not clarify side effects, what "capped status" means, whether execution is idempotent, or what gets altered or destroyed.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. Every phrase contributes directly to the action and return context.

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 destructive, open-world execution tool with no output schema, the definition is too sparse. It does not explain what running a task entails, how task names are resolved, what status values or caps apply, or what an agent should expect after invocation.

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?

The single parameter has complete schema coverage with a description of "Task name." The description reinforces that one named task is run, but it adds no further meaning about expected values, naming conventions, or resolution behavior beyond the schema.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Run one named task") and adds a locality constraint. However, "task" is undefined, and the description does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as run_command or task_status, leaving the agent to infer what kind of task is being run.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use run_task versus run_command, task_status, or list_tasks. The description does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or the appropriate context for executing a task locally.

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