Skip to main content
Glama

get_tasks_by_priority

Retrieve tasks from Dida365 based on their priority level (none, low, medium, or high) to focus on important items and organize workflow efficiently.

Instructions

按优先级获取任务。

Input Schema

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

Implementation Reference

  • The actual implementation of the get_tasks_by_priority tool logic in the client class.
    def get_tasks_by_priority(self, priority: int) -> List[Dict]:
        """按优先级获取任务 (0=无, 1=低, 3=中, 5=高)"""
        all_tasks = self.get_all_tasks()
        return [task for task in all_tasks if task.get("priority", 0) == priority]
  • The registration of the get_tasks_by_priority tool definition in the MCP server.
    {
        "name": "get_tasks_by_priority",
        "description": "按优先级获取任务。",
        "inputSchema": {
            "type": "object",
            "properties": {
                "priority": {
                    "type": "integer",
                    "description": "优先级(0=无, 1=低, 3=中, 5=高)",
                    "enum": [0, 1, 3, 5],
                }
            },
            "required": ["priority"],
        },
    },
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the output format is (e.g., list of tasks with details), or any rate limits. '获取' implies reading, but specifics are missing, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese ('按优先级获取任务。') that directly conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (filtering tasks by priority), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., task details, just IDs), how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., pagination). For a read operation with no structured output documentation, more context is needed.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'priority' parameter fully documented (including enum values and meanings). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('获取' - get) and resource ('任务' - tasks) with a specific filter criterion ('按优先级' - by priority). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_all_tasks' or 'get_overdue_tasks' by specifying priority-based filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what '获取' entails (e.g., listing, retrieving details).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, differences from 'search_tasks' (which might allow broader filtering), or when to prefer 'get_all_tasks' for unfiltered results. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Martinqi826/dida-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server