Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tuskr-mcp

tuskr-mcp

by Zapkid
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_sections_tree

Retrieve project sections as a nested tree. Input the app name to display the hierarchical structure of sections for that Tuskr project.

Instructions

List Tuskr project sections in nested tree form.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "app_name": "<app_name>"
    },
    "name": "get_sections_tree"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
app_nameYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only hints at hierarchical output ('nested tree form') but omits whether it is read-only, depth of nesting, or sorting. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short (7 words), which is efficient but lacks necessary detail. It achieves purpose clarity but at the expense of comprehensiveness.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not help the agent understand the input (app_name) or the nested tree structure. It is too minimal for practical use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'app_name' parameter. The agent receives no guidance on what this parameter represents or how to obtain valid values.

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 'List' and resource 'Tuskr project sections' with the specific format 'nested tree form', which distinguishes it from sibling 'list_sections'. However, it does not clarify the role of the required 'app_name' parameter.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_sections'. The description does not mention context or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools