Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIMFP

AIMFP

by aryanduntley
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_incomplete_items

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve incomplete tasks, subtasks, or sidequests for a specific parent ID.

Instructions

Get incomplete items for any parent type

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": {
      "for_table": "<for_table>",
      "for_id": "<for_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_incomplete_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
for_tableYes"tasks", "subtasks", "sidequests" (accepts singular)
for_idYesParent ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.37.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotence. The description adds only 'for any parent type' but does not explain what 'incomplete' means, any ordering, pagination, or limits. Minimal added value over annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately short and front-loaded, but could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the presence of many specific sibling tools, the description lacks context on how this generic tool differs (e.g., return format, scope of 'incomplete', whether it aggregates across parent types). No output schema is provided, so the description should compensate, but it does not.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters: for_table (values like tasks, subtasks, sidequests) and for_id (parent ID). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves incomplete items for any parent type, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_incomplete_tasks or get_incomplete_subtasks, as those also get incomplete items but for specific parent types. The purpose is clear but lacks distinction.

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 generic tool versus the many specific sibling tools (e.g., get_incomplete_tasks, get_incomplete_subtasks_by_task). The description does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision criteria for tool selection.

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