Skip to main content
Glama
awwaiid

TaskWarrior MCP Server

by awwaiid

get_next_tasks

Retrieve pending tasks from TaskWarrior to view and manage upcoming work items based on project or tags.

Instructions

Get a list of all pending tasks

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectNo
tagsNo

Implementation Reference

  • Handler for the 'get_next_tasks' tool. Parses input arguments using listPendingTasksRequest schema, constructs TaskWarrior command with optional project and tags filters, executes 'task limit: ... next' via execSync, and returns the output as text content.
    case "get_next_tasks": {
      const parsed = listPendingTasksRequest.safeParse(args);
      if (!parsed.success) {
        throw new Error(`Invalid arguments for get_next_tasks: ${parsed.error}`);
      }
      let task_args = [];
      if (parsed.data.tags) {
        for(let tag of parsed.data.tags) {
          task_args.push(`+${tag}`);
        }
      }
      if (parsed.data.project) {
          task_args.push(`project:${parsed.data.project}`);
      }
      const content = execSync(`task limit: ${task_args.join(" ")} next`, { maxBuffer: 1024 * 1024 * 10 }).toString().trim();
      return {
        content: [{ type: "text", text: content }],
      };
    }
  • Zod input schema for 'get_next_tasks' tool: optional project (regex ^[a-z.]+$ ) and tags (array of single lowercase letters).
    const listPendingTasksRequest = z.object({
      project: z.string().regex(/^[a-z.]+$/).optional(),
      tags: z.array(z.string().regex(/^a-z$/)).optional(),
    });
  • index.ts:96-100 (registration)
    Registration of the 'get_next_tasks' tool in the ListToolsRequestHandler, specifying name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: "get_next_tasks",
      description: "Get a list of all pending tasks",
      inputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(listPendingTasksRequest) as ToolInput,
    },
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get a list of all pending tasks,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or what 'pending' means (e.g., status-based filtering). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameters, return values, or behavioral context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The input schema has 2 parameters ('project' and 'tags') with 0% schema description coverage, meaning they are undocumented. The description doesn't mention these parameters at all, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. It should explain what 'project' and 'tags' are used for in filtering tasks.

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 'Get a list of all pending tasks' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('pending tasks'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_task' or 'mark_task_done', which are clearly different operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/awwaiid/mcp-server-taskwarrior'

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