Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Dida365 MCP Server

Dida365 MCP Server

by Martinqi826
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_tasks_by_priority

Retrieve tasks filtered by priority level (none, low, medium, high) to organize and focus on urgent work.

Instructions

按优先级获取任务。

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": {
      "priority": "<priority>"
    },
    "name": "get_tasks_by_priority"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
priorityYes优先级（0=无, 1=低, 3=中, 5=高）

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'get tasks by priority' but does not confirm that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention any side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. The description is not contradictory but is insufficient.

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?

The description is exceptionally concise, using a single sentence. However, it lacks structural elements like separation of purpose and behavior. For a simple tool with one parameter, this level of conciseness is acceptable, but it does not earn a perfect score due to the lack of structured detail.

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?

The description is incomplete for a list tool. It does not mention what is returned (e.g., task IDs, full task objects), whether results are sorted, or the maximum number of tasks returned. The absence of an output schema increases the burden on the description, which it fails to meet.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage of the parameter, including enum values and their meanings. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond restating the filter criterion. Since the schema already documents the parameter adequately, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'get' and resource 'tasks' with a specific filter 'by priority'. It successfully distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_all_tasks' or 'get_overdue_tasks' by indicating the filtering criterion. However, it does not elaborate on the scope or format of the results.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. Agents have to infer usage context from the name alone.

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