Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIMFP

AIMFP

by aryanduntley
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_items_for_subtask

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve items assigned to a subtask, optionally filtered by status (pending, in_progress, completed). Enables tracking task components in functional programming projects.

Instructions

Get items for subtask

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": {
      "subtask_id": "<subtask_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_items_for_subtask"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
subtask_idYesSubtask ID
statusNo'pending', 'in_progress', 'completed' (NULL = all)

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 indicate readOnly and idempotent behavior, reducing the description's burden. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., side effects, performance), which is acceptable for a simple read operation but does not go beyond what is implied.

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 ultra-concise (4 words) but lacks additional useful information. While not verbose, it does not earn its place by adding value beyond the name; it is acceptable but minimal.

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?

For a simple read tool with two parameters, no output schema, and informative annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain what 'items' are or the relationship to subtask, but the schema partially compensates.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description does not add additional meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as it neither helps nor hinders understanding of the parameters.

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's action and resource ('Get items for subtask'), matching the name. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'get_items_for_sidequest' by specifying the resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate or provide alternatives.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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