Tendem MCP
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.9
- Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action on tasks or artifacts: approve, cancel, create, download, get status, get final result, get all results, and list. No overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., approve_task, download_artifact) using lowercase and underscores, making it easy to predict tool names.
Tool Count5/5With 8 tools, the set covers the full lifecycle of task management without being bloated or sparse. Each tool has a clear purpose.
Completeness4/5The tools cover creation, approval, cancellation, status polling, result retrieval (single and all), artifact download, and listing. The only missing operation is updating a task, but that is not critical for the typical workflow.
Average 4/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 3.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 2 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 20 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
This server has been verified by its author.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses ordering (latest to oldest), inclusion of intermediate drafts, and pagination behavior. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, authentication requirements, or any constraints beyond pagination.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a single-sentence summary followed by structured Args/Returns. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the Returns section is brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains pagination and ordering, and mentions 'canvas content' in returns. However, it does not clarify differences from sibling tools like 'get_task_result' or describe edge cases (e.g., no results). Output schema exists but is not shown, so evaluation is limited.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description includes an Args block that explains each parameter: task_id is a UUID, page_number is 0-indexed, page_size is 1-100. This adds crucial meaning beyond the plain schema types, compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get all Tendem task results including intermediate drafts, from latest to oldest.' It specifies the verb (get), resource (task results), and scope (all, including drafts). Although it shares a server with 'get_task_result' (singular), the plural name and mention of 'all' and 'intermediate drafts' distinguishes it, but explicit differentiation is missing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_task_result' or other siblings. It does not mention use cases or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given no annotations, the description reveals that the tool returns an error if the task is not completed and returns 'content of the latest canvas'. This is decent but could mention idempotency or read-only nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with clear Args and Returns sections, no redundant information, and every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core functionality and error condition. With an output schema present, it does not need to detail return values further. Slight lack of usage context with siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds the meaning of task_id as 'The Tendem task ID (UUID)', providing format and type beyond the schema's raw 'string' type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get the final result text from a completed Tendem task', specifying the action, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_all_task_results and get_task.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies it should be used for completed tasks (returns error otherwise), but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like get_task or get_all_task_results, nor provide when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses pagination behavior via page_number and page_size, but lacks details on auth, rate limits, or data freshness. Adequate for a simple read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise, using a clear structured format (Args, Returns). Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values. It mentions 'Paginated list of Tendem tasks', which is sufficient. Could specify ordering or filtering but not essential for a list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explains parameters: 'Page number (0-indexed)' and 'Number of results per page (1-100)'. This adds meaning beyond the schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List all Tendem tasks with their statuses', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_task (single task) and create_task (creation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_task or get_all_task_results. The description does not mention any exclusions or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It warns that costs are not refunded after approval, which is critical. However, it does not disclose other side effects like state changes, reversibility, or permissions needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a clear first sentence stating the action and key warning. It then indicates usage timing and provides structured args/returns. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main points: action, cost caveat, parameter, and return type. It lacks details about edge cases (e.g., already cancelled) but is sufficient for standard use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful information by specifying the parameter as 'Tendem task ID (UUID)' and stating its purpose ('to cancel'). This compensates for the lack of schema-level descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Cancel' and the resource 'Tendem task'. It differentiates from sibling tools like approve_task and create_task by specifying the cancel operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states 'Can be called at any time,' giving a usage context, but does not explicitly say when to avoid using it or compare to alternatives. The cost warning implies caution after approval, but no direct guidance about alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that approval triggers human expert work and may take hours, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention any side effects, reversibility, or error states beyond the confirmation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a clear opening sentence followed by usage context in a separate paragraph, and standard Args/Returns sections. No unnecessary information is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, when to use it, and the parameter. It could mention idempotency or error conditions but is largely complete given the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains the task_id parameter as 'The Tendem task ID (UUID) to approve.', adding semantic detail beyond the schema's type definition. This helps the agent understand the expected format and purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'approve' and the resource 'Tendem task and its price', distinguishing it from sibling tools like cancel_task, create_task, etc. It also specifies the resulting behavior (human expert begins working).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description tells when to use the tool: after reviewing the price in AWAITING_APPROVAL status. It also explains the expected outcome (human works for hours). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternative tools, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the polling behavior and states but omits potential side effects or rate limits; adequate for a read tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Clear, well-structured with bullet points for args and returns. No redundant sentences, but could be slightly more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given simple 1-parameter tool and presence of output schema, the description covers usage flow and return details adequately, though no info on error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, but description adds that task_id is a UUID, providing crucial format context beyond the schema's type definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves task status and details, specifies the resource (Tendem task), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like approve_task, cancel_task, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states 'Use to poll after create_task or approve_task' and explains expected states (AWAITING_APPROVAL, COMPLETED), providing clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool downloads and saves files locally and returns a confirmation with path and size. However, it omits details like whether existing files are overwritten or any permission requirements, leaving some behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: a single sentence for purpose, a code block for artifact reference format, and clear sections for args and returns. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with three required parameters and an output schema. The description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return format. It lacks potential error handling or overwrite behavior, but overall is sufficient for the task's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: task_id (UUID), artifact_id (UUID from agents-reference), and path (local save location). It adds context for artifact_id's origin, which is not evident from the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool downloads a file artifact and saves it locally, specifying the source (Tendem task results) and file types (image, document). This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools which focus on task management (approve, cancel, list, etc.).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains how artifact references appear (agents-reference) and provides parameter details, giving clear context on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like get_task_result or state when not to use this tool, preventing a score of 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains polling behavior and creation time, but does not cover all side effects. Still, it adds significant 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear first sentence, followed by polling instructions, specializations, and avoidance guidelines. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though slightly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of task creation with asynchronous polling and multiple specialization options, the description covers creation, polling, specializations, and prohibitions. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'text' is described as 'The task description/prompt to execute,' adding meaning beyond the bare schema (type string, no description). With 0% schema coverage, description compensates well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new Tendem task for a human expert,' specifying the verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like approve_task and cancel_task.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly lists when to use this tool with specializations and thresholds, and provides avoidance guidelines for regulated expertise or private system access, offering clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/Toloka/tendem-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server