Skip to main content
Glama
bzdOS

hubd

by bzdOS
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

hub_kanban

Get open tasks as a board: queued and in-progress, plus recent done and journal entries. Each task shows blocked and overdue flags.

Instructions

The board as data: open tasks split into queued (unassigned) and in-progress (assigned), plus done-in-the-last-day and recent journal — the same view the read-only web kanban renders. Each task carries blocked and overdue flags.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fullNoreturn everything, uncapped. By default long lists are trimmed to fit an agent context and what was left out is reported in `truncated`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / full
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "return everything, uncapped. By default long lists are trimmed to fit an agent context and what was left out is reported in `truncated`.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.6

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It indicates read-only nature via 'read-only web kanban' and lists returned data, but does not disclose side effects, auth needs, or truncation behavior beyond what is already in the schema.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core 'board as data' concept, and each clause adds meaningful detail without redundancy.

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?

The description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and its relationship to the web kanban. The only minor gap is lack of explicit mention of read-only safety, but the 'read-only web kanban' wording implies it.

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% and the single parameter 'full' is well-documented in the schema, explaining uncapped returns and truncation reporting. The description adds no extra 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns the kanban board as data, specifying the exact categories (queued/in-progress, done-in-last-day, journal) and flags. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by tying to the read-only web kanban view.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies this tool is for retrieving board-oriented task data, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like hub_task_list or hub_agenda, nor any exclusions.

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