Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
DutyHub MCP Server

DutyHub MCP Server

by K-ulucay
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

assign_task

Assign a user to a task to track responsibility and streamline project management.

Instructions

Bir task'a bir kullanıcı atar (task_assignee). Atama ayrı tabloda tutulur.

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": {
      "task_id": "<task_id>",
      "user_id": "<user_id>"
    },
    "name": "assign_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYes
user_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The only behavioral detail is that assignment is stored in a separate table. Missing: whether it overwrites existing assignments, triggers notifications, or requires specific permissions. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but provides minimal behavioral context.

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 with front-loaded purpose. Efficient, but could be improved by adding usage context without increasing length.

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?

No output schema, so the description should explain return values or side effects. It does not. For a simple two-parameter tool, it still feels incomplete: missing error cases, success behavior, and any confirmation.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain what task_id and user_id represent (e.g., format, scope). Both are required but their meaning is left to inference. The description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action: assign a user to a task (verb 'atar' + direct object 'kullanıcı' + indirect object 'task'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_comment or create_task by specifying the assignment concept.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., user must be a member) or exclusions. Sibling tools exist but no differentiation provided.

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