Skip to main content
Glama
alexisinwork

Task Board MCP Server

by alexisinwork
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The three tools have clearly distinct purposes: searching, creating, and updating status. No overlap or ambiguity exists between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lower snake_case: search_tasks, create_task, set_status. This makes the API predictable and easy to navigate.

    Tool Count5/5

    With only three tools, the server is tightly scoped to its purpose as a minimal task board. Each tool earns its place and there is no bloat.

    Completeness4/5

    The core lifecycle of creating, searching, and updating task status is covered. Missing delete and full task editing are minor gaps, but the essential workflow is functional.

  • Average 4.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • 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.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • 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?

    Annotations already convey that the tool is write-oriented, destructive, and idempotent. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as side effects, permissions, or error handling, but it also does not contradict the annotations. The additional value over annotations is minimal.

    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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It delivers the essential information (what the tool does and the allowed values) in the most efficient way possible.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness4/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    With only two parameters, full schema coverage, and clear annotations, the description is largely sufficient for a simple mutation tool. It does not clarify the return value or error behavior, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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

    Parameters3/5

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

    The schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (id and status), and the enum values are repeated in the description. No extra nuance or format details are added beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description uses a specific verb ('Move') with a clear resource ('a task') and enumerates the exact allowed statuses, making its purpose unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like search_tasks and create_task.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines4/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The tool name and description make the intended use obvious, and the sibling tool names (search_tasks, create_task) show a natural functional separation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, missing a 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?

    Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals that the tool returns a note describing the search, and that it handles empty results gracefully. This adds context about the output and non-error behavior.

    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?

    Two sentences: the first states the core function, the second adds a use case and return behavior. Every word is necessary.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness5/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    With a full schema, readOnlyHint, and an output schema, the description covers the search scope, a use case, and return behavior. It's complete for this tool's complexity.

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

    Parameters3/5

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

    The input schema already fully describes both parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no new parameter-level details, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool finds tasks by title or tags, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by also mentioning its role in duplicate avoidance before creating.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines4/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    It explicitly advises using this tool before creating a task to avoid duplicates, which is a clear use case. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the instruction is actionable.

    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?

    Annotations already reveal this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent write. The description adds key context that no duplicate detection occurs, which is non-obvious and useful. It does not explain return value or permissions, but the core behavioral caveat is disclosed.

    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?

    Two short sentences with a clear lead action and one essential caveat. No filler or repetition of schema details; every word adds value.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness4/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    For a simple three-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and a critical edge case. It could mention what is returned or that the task is immediately placed on the board, but the provided information is sufficient for safe invocation.

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

    Parameters3/5

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

    Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already well-documented with descriptions and defaults (tags, title, status). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    States a specific action and resource: 'Add a task to the board.' This clearly distinguishes create_task from sibling search_tasks and set_status, and the dedup warning reinforces that it is a creation operation.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines5/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    Explicitly instructs the agent to search first because the tool does not detect duplicates, effectively telling when to use search_tasks before invoking create_task. This gives clear behavioral guidance for avoiding duplicate creation.

    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

MCP MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

MCP MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/alexisinwork/MCP'

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