Tasks MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes (add, delete, get, update, list, filter, get status), but 'tasks_list_tool' and 'filter_tasks_tool' could cause confusion as both retrieve lists of tasks. The descriptions clarify that one is a simple list with a limit, while the other allows filtering by multiple criteria, but the overlap in functionality might lead to misselection in some contexts.
Naming Consistency3/5
The naming is mixed with no clear pattern: 'add_task_tool', 'delete_task_tool', 'filter_tasks_tool', 'get_tasks_status', 'get_task_tool', 'tasks_list_tool', 'update_task_tool'. Some use verb_noun_tool (e.g., add_task_tool), others use noun_verb_tool (e.g., tasks_list_tool), and 'get_tasks_status' lacks the '_tool' suffix. This inconsistency reduces predictability but remains readable.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, this is well-scoped for a task management server. Each tool serves a clear purpose in handling tasks, such as CRUD operations, listing, filtering, and retrieving status values. The count is neither too sparse nor bloated, fitting typical use cases effectively.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete coverage for task management: create (add_task_tool), read (get_task_tool, tasks_list_tool, filter_tasks_tool), update (update_task_tool), delete (delete_task_tool), and additional utility (get_tasks_status). There are no obvious gaps; agents can perform all essential lifecycle operations without dead ends.
Average 2.9/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 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

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states it returns a dictionary of status tasks values, without explaining what 'status tasks values' means, whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, or any other behavioral characteristics. This leaves the agent with insufficient information about how the tool behaves.
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 brief with two sentences, but the first sentence is tautological and adds little value. The second sentence about the return type is useful but could be more informative. While appropriately sized, the content isn't front-loaded with meaningful information that helps the agent understand the tool's purpose.
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 of having multiple sibling tools with similar names and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify what differentiates this tool from 'get_task_tool' or 'tasks_list_tool', nor does it explain what 'status tasks values' means in context. For a tool with 0 parameters but potentially important distinctions from siblings, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. With no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to provide parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's nothing for the description to compensate for regarding parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get the status tasks values' which is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_tasks_status'. It doesn't provide a clear, specific verb+resource combination or distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'get_task_tool' or 'tasks_list_tool'. The description is vague about what exactly 'status tasks values' means.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 its siblings. With tools like 'get_task_tool', 'tasks_list_tool', and 'filter_tasks_tool' available, there's no indication whether this tool retrieves all task statuses, aggregated status values, or something else. No context, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 it returns a list of tasks but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, how it handles pagination, what sorting or filtering options exist, or if there are rate limits. For a list tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the formatting could be slightly more polished.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete but lacks critical context like usage guidelines and behavioral transparency. It's adequate for a simple list tool but has clear gaps.
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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema: it explains that 'task_limit' is the maximum number of tasks to return with a default of 10. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this provides some value but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema details (e.g., range constraints or usage context).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get a list of tasks' which clearly indicates the verb (get) and resource (tasks), but it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'filter_tasks_tool' or 'get_task_tool' which likely serve similar purposes. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
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 like 'filter_tasks_tool' or 'get_task_tool'. It mentions a default task limit but doesn't explain when this tool is appropriate compared to other task-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether partial updates are allowed, what happens with null values, or error conditions. The mention of 'The task object containing updated information' is vague and doesn't add meaningful behavioral context beyond the basic action.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured clearly, though they could be more informative. There's no wasted text, but the brevity comes at the cost of completeness.
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?
Given a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and I/O structure but lacks crucial details like parameter meanings, usage context, and behavioral transparency, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'task (Task): The task object containing updated information' but provides no details on what fields can be updated, their formats, or constraints. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's property names like 'id', 'title', 'description', and 'status', leaving parameters largely undocumented.
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 action ('Update') and resource ('an existing task'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from creation tools like 'add_task_tool' by specifying 'existing task', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update-related operations that might exist in the sibling set.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'add_task_tool', 'delete_task_tool', and 'get_task_tool', there's no indication of when this update operation is appropriate versus creating new tasks, deleting them, or retrieving them. The description assumes the user already knows when updates are needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'A list of tasks matching the specified status and title' but doesn't mention whether all filters are AND/OR combined, what happens when no filters are provided, pagination behavior, error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a filtering tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns). It's appropriately sized for a filtering tool. However, the purpose statement mentions only two filter criteria while the tool actually supports four, creating a minor inconsistency. The 'Args' section could be more efficiently integrated.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (list[Task]), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. However, with no annotations, 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage, and multiple sibling tools, the description should provide more context about filtering logic, performance, and differentiation from alternatives. It's minimally adequate but leaves important questions unanswered.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all four parameters with brief explanations, but provides minimal semantic context. It doesn't explain what TaskStatus enum values mean (0, 1, 2), date format for 'created_at', or how string matching works for 'title' and 'description'. The description adds basic parameter identification but lacks meaningful semantic details.
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 purpose: 'Filter tasks by status and title.' It specifies the verb ('filter') and resource ('tasks'), though it mentions only two filter criteria in the purpose statement while the actual implementation includes four. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_tasks_status' or 'tasks_list_tool' by emphasizing filtering capabilities.
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 like 'get_tasks_status' or 'tasks_list_tool'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, performance considerations, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Add a new task', implying a write operation, but doesn't mention permissions, side effects, error conditions, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency, as critical behavioral traits are left unspecified.
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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return sections. Every sentence adds value, such as specifying optionality for 'description'. Minor improvements could include integrating the parameter details more seamlessly, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (a write operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present (which covers return values), the description is moderately complete. It explains the action and parameters but lacks behavioral context like error handling or permissions. The output schema reduces the need to describe returns, but more guidance on usage and transparency would enhance completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'title' is required and 'description' is optional, clarifying parameter roles that aren't evident from the schema alone. However, it doesn't detail constraints like length limits or content rules, preventing a perfect score.
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 action ('Add a new task') and resource ('task'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'delete_task_tool' or 'update_task_tool' by specifying creation rather than modification or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other task-related tools beyond the verb, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.
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 like 'update_task_tool' or 'tasks_list_tool'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether a task list must exist first, or exclusions, like when not to use it. This absence of usage context leaves the agent without clear direction for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 mentions the return behavior ('The task object if found, otherwise None'), which is helpful, but lacks details on error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics, but gaps in behavioral transparency and usage guidelines prevent a higher score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'task_id' is 'The ID of the task to retrieve', which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's basic type. However, it doesn't specify format constraints or examples, leaving some semantic gaps.
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 verb 'Get' and resource 'task by ID', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_tasks_status' or 'tasks_list_tool' which might also retrieve tasks, leaving room for ambiguity in sibling 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'filter_tasks_tool' or 'tasks_list_tool'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate, leaving the agent without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a task but fails to mention critical traits like whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what happens to associated data, required permissions, or error handling (e.g., for invalid IDs). This leaves significant gaps for safe agent usage.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose ('Delete a task by ID.') and uses a structured format for args and returns, making it easy to parse. However, the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections are somewhat redundant given the input/output schemas, slightly reducing efficiency.
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?
Given the tool's destructive nature, no annotations, and a simple input schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic operation and parameter but lacks details on behavioral risks, error cases, or output implications (though the output schema indicates 'None', reducing need for return value explanation). More context on safety and usage would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'task_id' by specifying it as 'The ID of the task to delete', which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's basic type definition. Since schema description coverage is 0% and there's only one parameter, this compensates adequately, though it could detail ID format or validation rules.
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 specific action ('Delete') and resource ('a task by ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add_task_tool', 'update_task_tool', or 'get_task_tool'. It directly communicates the tool's function without ambiguity.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_task_tool' for modifying tasks or 'filter_tasks_tool' for managing tasks without deletion. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as confirming task existence or handling dependencies, which is critical for a destructive operation.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![tasks-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chipocrudos/tasks-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chipocrudos/tasks-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![tasks-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chipocrudos/tasks-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chipocrudos/tasks-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/chipocrudos/tasks-mcp'

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