Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Contractor Foreman MCP Server

Contractor Foreman MCP Server

by cotletdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Create to-do

create_todo
Destructive

Create a to-do with due date, priority, and assignees, optionally linked to a project, so team members see assigned tasks in their Contractor Foreman app.

Instructions

New to-do, optionally on a project, with due date, priority and assignees.

Adds a to-do and returns it as get_todo shows it. Assignees see it in their Contractor Foreman app.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_todo"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesWhat has to be done.
due_dateNo
due_timeNoe.g. 09:00 or 2:30 PM.
priorityNomedium
project_idNoProject from list_projects.
descriptionNo
assignee_idsNocontact_id values from list_contacts of the employees or contacts who should do it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-idempotent, destructive, open-world write. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it states the return shape ('returns it as get_todo shows it') and a side effect ('Assignees see it in their Contractor Foreman app'). It does not explain why the operation is destructive, but the annotations carry that signal.

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 tightly written sentences. The first sentence front-loads what the tool does and key optional fields; the second efficiently adds return behavior and visibility. No wasted words.

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 7 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, and annotations covering safety and openness, the description is nearly complete. It covers return behavior and a key side effect, though it could explicitly note that 'name' is the only required field and what happens if an invalid project_id is supplied.

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 57%, so several parameters (name, project_id, assignee_ids) are documented in the schema. The description groups the optional fields ('optionally on a project, with due date, priority and assignees') but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, leaving due_time and description unmentioned.

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?

States a specific verb ('New') and resource ('to-do') and lists optional fields (project, due date, priority, assignees). This clearly distinguishes it from get_todo, list_todos, and update_todo, though it does not explicitly name 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?

The description implies this tool is for creation but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to sibling tools like create_punchlist, create_rfi, or update_todo. An agent must infer its place in the workflow.

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