Skip to main content
Glama
cristip73

MCP Server for Asana

by cristip73

asana_get_task_stories

Retrieve comments and activity history for a specific Asana task to track progress and collaboration.

Instructions

Get comments and stories for a specific task

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYesThe task ID to get stories for
opt_fieldsNoComma-separated list of optional fields to include

Implementation Reference

  • The switch case in the tool_handler function that dispatches and executes the asana_get_task_stories tool by calling the Asana client method.
    case "asana_get_task_stories": {
      const { task_id, ...opts } = args;
      const response = await asanaClient.getStoriesForTask(task_id, opts);
      return {
        content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(response) }],
      };
    }
  • The AsanaClientWrapper method that performs the actual API call to retrieve stories for a task using the Asana SDK.
    async getStoriesForTask(taskId: string, opts: any = {}) {
      const response = await this.stories.getStoriesForTask(taskId, opts);
      return response.data;
    }
  • Defines the tool metadata, name, description, and input schema for validation.
    export const getStoriesForTaskTool: Tool = {
      name: "asana_get_task_stories",
      description: "Get comments and stories for a specific task",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          task_id: {
            type: "string",
            description: "The task ID to get stories for"
          },
          opt_fields: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Comma-separated list of optional fields to include"
          }
        },
        required: ["task_id"]
      }
    };
  • Imports the getStoriesForTaskTool for registration in the tools list.
      getStoriesForTaskTool,
      createTaskStoryTool
    } from './tools/story-tools.js';
  • Registers the tool in the exported tools array used by the MCP server.
    getStoriesForTaskTool,
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 retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but does not mention potential limitations like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, efficiently conveying the core purpose. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to grasp quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output format, which are important for a read operation in a system with many sibling tools. It meets the minimum viable standard 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('task_id' and 'opt_fields'). The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of optional fields or formatting details. Thus, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing parameter understanding.

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 ('Get') and resource ('comments and stories for a specific task'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'asana_get_task' or 'asana_get_subtasks_for_task', which focus on different aspects of task data, so it falls short of a perfect 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, such as 'asana_get_task' for basic task details or 'asana_create_task_story' for adding stories. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction.

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/cristip73/mcp-server-asana'

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