Skip to main content
Glama

list_requests

View all pending requests and their associated tasks in the MCP TaskManager system to monitor queue status and track progress.

Instructions

List all requests with their basic information and summary of tasks. This provides a quick overview of all requests in the system.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'list_requests' tool. It returns a formatted list of all requests using the helper formatRequestsList().
    public async listRequests() {
      return {
        message: this.formatRequestsList(),
      };
    }
  • Zod input schema for the 'list_requests' tool. It is an empty object since the tool requires no parameters.
    const ListRequestsSchema = z.object({});
  • index.ts:175-179 (registration)
    Registration of the 'list_requests' tool in the listTools() method's return array, specifying name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: "list_requests",
      description: "List all requests in the system.",
      inputSchema: ListRequestsSchema,
    },
  • Helper utility function that generates a markdown table listing all requests with their progress (tasks done/total). Called by listRequests().
    private formatRequestsList(): string {
      let output = "Requests:\n";
      output += "| ID | Original Request | Tasks Done | Total Tasks |\n";
      output += "|-----|-----------------|------------|-------------|\n";
    
      for (const req of this.data.requests) {
        const doneTasks = req.tasks.filter((t) => t.approved).length;
        output += `| ${req.requestId} | ${req.originalRequest} | ${doneTasks} | ${req.tasks.length} |\n`;
      }
    
      return output;
    }
  • Dispatch case in callTool() method that validates input and invokes the listRequests() handler.
    case "list_requests": {
      const parsed = ListRequestsSchema.safeParse(parameters);
      if (!parsed.success) {
        throw new Error(`Invalid parameters: ${parsed.error}`);
      }
      return this.listRequests();
    }
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists requests but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), how results are ordered, if there's pagination, what happens with large datasets, or error conditions. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage. There's no wasted language or redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from context, preventing a perfect score.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple list operation), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on return format, behavioral traits, or error handling. For a list tool with no structured support, it meets basic requirements but has clear gaps in completeness.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is given since the schema fully covers the parameters (none exist), and the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 tool's purpose: 'List all requests with their basic information and summary of tasks.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('requests'), and scope ('all'), and mentions what information is included ('basic information and summary of tasks'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_next_task' or 'request_planning', which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description provides minimal usage guidance: 'This provides a quick overview of all requests in the system.' It implies this tool is for quick overviews but doesn't specify when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_next_task' for focused task retrieval or 'request_planning' for planning-related queries). No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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/Rudra-ravi/mcp-taskmanager'

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