Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Contractor Foreman MCP Server

Contractor Foreman MCP Server

by cotletdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Get to-do

get_todo
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve one Contractor Foreman to-do by ID to view its project, priority, status, due date, assignees, and checklist details.

Instructions

One to-do: description, project, priority, status, due date, assignees and checklist.

Returns one to-do with its description, due date and time, assignees and checklist items. Read only.

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": {
      "todo_id": "<todo_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_todo"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
todo_idYestodo_id from list_todos.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read only' adds no new information. The description says nothing beyond that — no not-found behavior, no permission requirements, no pagination/limits — leaving the behavior for error cases undisclosed.

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?

Two sentences that restate the same field list twice (description, due date, assignees, checklist). It is short but has visible redundancy rather than front-loaded unique information.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does the important remaining job of naming the returned fields, which is genuinely useful. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only error/edge-case behavior is missing.

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 todo_id property already states 'todo_id from list_todos', which is more useful than anything in the description. The description adds no format, scope, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Returns one to-do') and resource, and enumerates what is included (description, due date, assignees, checklist). It is clear what the tool does, though it never names list_todos as the sibling it differs from for bulk retrieval.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch a single to-do by id, where the id comes from list_todos (that link lives in the parameter schema, not the description). No explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative named.

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