Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
DutyHub MCP Server

DutyHub MCP Server

by K-ulucay
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

list_tasks

Retrieve tasks for a project, with optional filtering by status (pending, in_progress, completed).

Instructions

Bir projenin task'larını listeler. Server-side status filtresi olmadığı için istemci tarafında filtreleriz. status_filter verilirse (pending/in_progress/completed) sadece o durumdakiler döner.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_tasks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesProje UUID
status_filterNoOpsiyonel: pending | in_progress | completed (TR girdiler de kabul edilir)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Discloses that filtering is client-side and that Turkish inputs are accepted for status_filter. However, missing details on pagination, ordering, and return format, which are important for a list operation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with main action, no redundant words. Efficient and clear.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Adequate for a simple list tool, but lacks description of return values. No output schema, so the description should cover what is returned. Missing pagination/ordering details.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Adds value beyond schema by explaining client-side filtering and language flexibility for status_filter. Schema already documents parameters, so extra context is useful.

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?

Description clearly states it lists tasks for a project, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects or list_comments. The optional filtering adds specificity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_comments, get_project). Usage is implied by the resource type but not explicitly stated.

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