To Do List MCP
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| prompts | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| resources | {
"subscribe": false,
"listChanged": false
} |
| experimental | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| task_addD | – |
| task_updateD | – |
| task_completeD | – |
| task_getD | – |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 4 tools
task_add, task_update, task_complete, and task_get target reasonably distinct actions on a task. However, task_complete overlaps with task_update (completing is a specialized update), and the absence of descriptions leaves boundaries somewhat implicit.
All four tools follow a strict task_<verb> snake_case pattern with no deviations. The convention is predictable and immediately readable.
Four tools is a sensible, well-scoped surface for a simple to-do list server. It is on the lean side but each tool maps to a clear operation.
The set covers create, read, update, and complete, but lacks a list/query-all operation and a delete/remove operation. These are notable gaps for a to-do domain that will force agents to work around missing lifecycle steps.