Skip to main content
Glama

getTasksMetricsComplete

Retrieve the total count of completed tasks from Teamwork projects to track progress and measure productivity.

Instructions

Get the total count of completed tasks in Teamwork

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that executes the tool logic: logs the action, fetches metrics from '/tasks/metrics/complete.json' using the API client, returns formatted JSON response or error.
    export async function handleGetTasksMetricsComplete() {
      try {
        logger.info('Getting metrics for completed tasks');
        
        // Make API call
        const apiClient = getApiClientForVersion();
        const response = await apiClient.get('/tasks/metrics/complete.json');
        
        return {
          content: [{
            type: "text",
            text: JSON.stringify(response.data, null, 2)
          }]
        };
      } catch (error: any) {
        return createErrorResponse(error, 'Retrieving completed tasks metrics');
      }
    } 
  • The tool schema/definition including name, description, empty input schema (no parameters), and annotations.
    export const getTasksMetricsCompleteDefinition = {
      name: "getTasksMetricsComplete",
      description: "Get the total count of completed tasks in Teamwork",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {},
        required: []
      },
      annotations: {
        title: "Get the Total Count of Completed Tasks",
        readOnlyHint: false,
        destructiveHint: false,
        openWorldHint: false
      }
    };
  • Registration of the tool in the central toolPairs array, pairing the definition and handler for inclusion in toolDefinitions and toolHandlersMap.
    { definition: getTasksMetricsComplete, handler: handleGetTasksMetricsComplete },
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, but the description doesn't add behavioral context beyond this. It doesn't explain what 'completed tasks' entails (e.g., time range, project scope) or any rate limits, though annotations cover safety aspects. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and annotations covering basic behavioral hints, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks details on output format (e.g., numeric count, JSON structure) or usage context, which could be helpful for an AI agent despite the annotations.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundancy, earning a baseline score for zero-parameter tools.

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 ('total count of completed tasks in Teamwork'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'getTasksMetricsLate', which also retrieves task metrics, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'getTasksMetricsLate' for late tasks or other task-related tools like 'getTasks'. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.

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/Vizioz/Teamwork-MCP'

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