Vikunja MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.2.2
Disambiguation2/5
The vikunja_tasks tool overlaps significantly with multiple specialized tools (e.g., vikunja_task_crud, vikunja_task_assignees, vikunja_task_comments, vikunja_task_bulk), creating ambiguity about which tool to use for common operations. Additionally, vikunja_labels and vikunja_task_labels are distinct but their names are confusingly similar.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools share a consistent 'vikunja_' prefix and use snake_case. Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., vikunja_batch_import, vikunja_task_assignees), but some are just nouns (e.g., vikunja_labels, vikunja_projects). The vikunja_tasks tool is overly broad compared to others, creating a minor inconsistency.
Tool Count4/5
With 16 tools, the server covers many aspects of task management, but the redundancy from vikunja_tasks duplicating other tools makes the count feel slightly inflated. Still, it remains within a reasonable range for a comprehensive API.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides full CRUD for tasks, projects, labels, teams, and templates, plus advanced features like filters, webhooks, bulk operations, relations, reminders, and authentication. There are no obvious gaps for standard task management workflows.
Average 2.5/5 across 16 of 16 tools scored. Lowest: 1.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 17 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 16, 2025
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
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 provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It omits any mention of side effects (e.g., destructive operations like delete), authentication requirements, or read/write nature. The agent has no insight into tool behavior beyond the subcommand names.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, but it sacrifices necessary information for brevity. It lacks structure (no bullet points, no examples) and fails to earn its place by omitting critical details expected for a complex tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (30 parameters, 20 subcommands, many sibling tools) and absence of output schema or rich annotations, the description is wholly inadequate. It provides no usage context, no subcommand-specific guidance, and no behavioral details, making it nearly useless for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no explanation for any of the 30 parameters, leaving the agent clueless about parameter meaning, default values, or which parameters apply to which subcommands.
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?
Description states 'Manage tasks with comprehensive operations' and lists examples, which gives a general sense. However, it doesn't distinguish this from specialized sibling tools like vikunja_task_crud or vikunja_task_assignees, making it unclear when to use this over those.
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 on when to use this tool versus specialized siblings. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided and description omits any behavioral traits such as mutability, authentication needs, side effects (e.g., template creation), or limits. Agent has no insight beyond basic CRUD inference from subcommand enum.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is extremely concise but fails to convey necessary details for a 9-parameter, subcommand-driven tool. Under-specification outweighs brevity benefits.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and complex parameter set with subcommands, description is vastly incomplete. No information about return values, operation-specific requirements, or parameter interdependencies.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and description offers no explanation of parameters. The subcommand enum, required fields per operation, and parameter conditions (e.g., id for get/update/delete) are left entirely unspecified.
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?
Description identifies the resource (task templates) and a general purpose (consistent tasks/project structures), but 'manage' is vague and does not specify the subcommand operations (CRUD, instantiate). Lacks specificity to distinguish from siblings.
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 on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like vikunja_tasks or vikunja_projects. Missing any when-to-use/when-not-to-use 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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Manage teams and team memberships,' failing to disclose authentication needs, rate limits, side effects of operations (e.g., deletion cascades), or any other behaviors beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It fails to earn its place by omitting essential details about the tool's functionality and parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (10 parameters, 2 enums, no output schema) and missing annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the subcommand pattern, how to use the member subcommands, or any return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description offers no explanation of any parameter. For a tool with 10 parameters including enums like subcommand and memberSubcommand, the lack of any parameter semantics is a critical gap.
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 the tool manages teams and memberships, which indicates the general domain but lacks specificity. It does not mention the CRUD operations or the subcommand structure, making it somewhat vague. However, it is not a tautology and correctly identifies the resource.
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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool vs. alternatives like vikunja_projects or vikunja_task_assignees, nor does it specify prerequisites or scenarios.
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 present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'full CRUD operations', which is inherent from the schema's subcommand enum. No additional traits (e.g., permissions, pagination behavior, idempotency, side effects) are described, limiting transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, but it is too vague to be concise. While short, it fails to convey essential details about the tool's functionality, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover parameter behavior, return values, or operational context, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description adds no information about what each parameter (e.g., id, page, title, hexColor) means or how they interact. This leaves the agent without critical guidance for correct parameter usage.
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 states 'Manage task labels with full CRUD operations', which clearly identifies the resource (task labels) and the operations (CRUD). It distinguishes from sibling tools like vikunja_task_labels, which likely focus on label-task associations rather than label management itself. However, the verb 'Manage' is somewhat generic; 'CRUD operations' adds specificity.
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 (e.g., vikunja_task_labels). The description lacks context for appropriate usage, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral details. It only names the three operations (create, update, delete) but does not mention side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or error behavior. Missing critical info for a bulk operation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, concise but severely under-specified. Every word is used, but the description is too short to convey necessary information for correct invocation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain operation-specific requirements (e.g., 'bulk-delete' needs 'taskIds', 'bulk-update' needs 'field' and 'value' or 'tasks').
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%; description adds no parameter details. It does not explain how to use 'operation', 'taskIds', 'field', 'value', 'projectId', or 'tasks'. The agent must infer from the enum and object structure alone.
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 performs bulk task operations (create, update, delete), distinguishing it from single-task siblings. However, the verb 'manage' is somewhat vague; a more active verb like 'perform' would be better.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vikunja_task_crud for single tasks or vikunja_batch_import for import. The description implies usage for bulk operations but does not explicitly state when not to use it.
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. It mentions 'validation' but fails to disclose the behavioral traits of each action (e.g., list is read-only, delete is destructive) or any side effects, permissions, or rate limits.
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 a single short sentence, making it concise but too brief for a tool with multiple actions and a complex parameters object. It is not wastefully long, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.
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 lack of output schema, annotations, and the presence of a nested 'parameters' object, the description is incomplete. It does not cover the behavior for each action, the required format for parameters, or the expected output, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain the meaning of the 'action' enum values or the structure of the 'parameters' object. No additional meaning is added beyond the schema.
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 states 'Manage and build advanced filters for tasks and projects with validation', which clearly indicates the tool deals with filters. However, it does not specify what 'manage' entails beyond the generic verb, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools that also manage project-related entities.
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. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where other sibling tools would be more appropriate.
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 provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions CRUD operations but fails to detail side effects (e.g., archive/unarchive, sharing implications, authentication needs) or hierarchy consequences.
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 concise (one sentence), but it lacks structure and is under-informative. It could be improved by listing key subcommands or capabilities.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 20 parameters, no output schema, and many suboperations, the description is extremely incomplete. It provides no details on pagination, sharing, hierarchy commands, or how to use the subcommand parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. It doesn't describe the subcommand enum or other fields like id, title, pagination, etc.
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 it manages projects with CRUD, hierarchy, and sharing. It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on other resources (tasks, labels, etc.). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other project-related tools.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites or context for using specific subcommands.
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, the description carries full burden. It indicates a write operation ('add comments') but does not disclose whether the tool also supports deletion, updating, or listing comments. No mention of side effects, permissions, or rate limits.
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 single sentence is concise, but its brevity comes at the cost of completeness. It provides a basic purpose without wasting words, but could be more structured to separate overview from details.
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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks information on how to use `commentId`, what the response contains, and how this tool fits into the broader task comment workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It only implies that `id` is a task ID and `comment` is text, but does not explain `commentId` (perhaps for deletion or update) or the `operation` enum. This leaves significant ambiguity.
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 states 'add comments to tasks', which identifies the primary action and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like vikunja_task_crud that handle task CRUD, but 'manage' is a broad verb that slightly obscures the exact operation.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vikunja_task_crud. No preconditions, exclusions, or context about comment lifecycle are provided.
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, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'manage', but does not mention required authentication, destructive nature of delete, or that specific operations need particular parameters (e.g., id for update/delete). The description lacks critical safety info.
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 a single sentence, which is concise but at the expense of essential details. It effectively restates the tool's name and enumerates operations, but contains no proactive guidance. It is minimally adequate but not optimally structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 20 parameters and no annotations or output schema, this description is severely incomplete. The agent cannot correctly invoke the tool without additional documentation. Context like parameter usage per operation, pagination for list, or error handling is entirely missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation of the 20 parameters. It merely lists operations without linking them to required parameters (e.g., create requires title, delete requires id). The agent cannot understand which parameters to use for each operation.
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 states 'Manage individual tasks: create, get, update, delete, list', clearly specifying the resource ('individual tasks') and the actions. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vikunja_tasks (which may handle bulk operations) by emphasizing 'individual'.
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 the many sibling tools (e.g., vikunja_task_assignees, vikunja_task_labels). The agent must infer from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for correct 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 exist, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, side effects (e.g., whether operations are destructive), or rate limits. The agent is left without critical information for safe invocation.
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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure and important details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the brevity undermines clarity and completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain subcommand semantics, required parameters per action, or expected responses, leaving the agent unable to use the tool effectively.
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%, and the description does not explain any parameters. The enum for subcommand is present but not elaborated, and other fields like projectId, webhookId, etc., lack context. The agent cannot determine parameter roles or constraints.
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 domain (webhooks) and purpose (integrating events with external services). It distinguishes from sibling tools like vikunja_tasks, vikunja_projects, etc., though 'manage' is somewhat vague.
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 instead of alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name 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, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'manage task labels' without explaining side effects (e.g., whether applying a non-existent label creates it), permission requirements, or what operations are idempotent. The enum implies mutation and read, but details are missing.
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 extremely concise at one sentence, front-loading the purpose. While it could be slightly more informative, it avoids fluff and gets to the point.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not specify what 'list-labels' returns, or required parameter relationships (e.g., labels required for apply/remove). More detail is needed for safe invocation.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It does not: 'id' is not confirmed as task ID, 'labels' as label IDs, no format or constraints. The enum values are self-explanatory, but additional context is lacking.
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: managing task labels with three specific operations (apply, remove, list). This is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like vikunja_labels (which likely manages label definitions) or vikunja_task_crud, but the operation enum provides clarity.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vikunja_labels for creating labels. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., task must exist, label must exist) or when not to use it.
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?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only superficially mentions 'manage authentication' but fails to indicate side effects (e.g., disconnect terminates session), required authentication, or rate limits for each subcommand.
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 a single sentence that quickly conveys the tool's purpose and key actions. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could benefit from more detail without becoming verbose.
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 lack of schema descriptions, output schema, and annotation support, the description is insufficient. It does not explain subcommand behavior, parameter usage, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent with critical gaps.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It merely repeats the subcommand enum and does not clarify the role of apiUrl and apiToken or their necessity for specific subcommands.
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?
Clearly states it manages authentication for Vikunja API and lists the specific subcommands (connect, status, refresh, disconnect), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on other domains like tasks, labels, and projects.
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 or which subcommand to choose under what circumstances. There are no prerequisites or situational examples, leaving the agent without decision support.
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 provided. Description mentions error handling and dry-run support, but does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, or error behavior (e.g., rollback). Insufficient for a mutation tool.
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?
Single sentence, no fluff, front-loaded with key information. Structured well but could be broken into a list for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. Lacks parameter details, return values, and error handling specifics.
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%. Description only adds meaning for 'format' (CSV/JSON), leaving 'projectId', 'data', 'skipErrors', 'dryRun' unexplained. Fails to compensate for missing schema descriptions.
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?
Description clearly states the tool imports tasks in bulk from CSV or JSON formats, with error handling and dry-run support. It differentiates from sibling tools like vikunja_task_bulk by specifying formats and features.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Only implies bulk import, but lacks context like prerequisites or when not to use.
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, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only implies mutation for assign/unassign and query for list, but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether duplicate assignments are ignored, or permissions required).
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 very concise (one sentence) and front-loads the purpose. However, it could include brief parameter explanations without becoming overly verbose.
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 lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the tool description is incomplete. It does not mention return values for list-assignees, error conditions, or prerequisite states (e.g., task existence).
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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), and the description does not explain parameters. 'id' could be task ID but is unspecified; 'assignees' is an array of numbers but not identified as user IDs. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema structure.
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's purpose: 'Manage task assignments' and lists three specific operations (assign, unassign, list assignees). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vikunja_task_crud or vikunja_labels, which handle different aspects of tasks.
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. There is no differentiation between operations (e.g., when to assign vs unassign) and no mention of prerequisites or best practices.
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 only lists the three operations without mentioning any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, whether operations are reversible, side effects, or rate limits. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the behavior beyond the bare functionality.
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 very concise (one sentence) but lacks structure. It lists operations but does not differentiate them or provide any hierarchical organization. While it is not verbose, it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.
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?
For a tool with 4 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify parameter usage per operation (e.g., which params are needed for 'relate' vs 'list'). This leads to ambiguity for the agent when selecting and invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Schema_description_coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters (e.g., what 'relationKind' values imply, or that 'otherTaskId' is needed for relate/unrelate). The enum values are uninterpreted.
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 states 'Manage task relationships: relate tasks, unrelate tasks, list relations', clearly indicating the verb (manage/relate/unrelate/list) and resource (task relationships). It distinguishes from siblings like vikunja_task_crud which handles individual tasks, thus earning a high score.
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 that this tool is for managing task relationships but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from 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?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only says 'manage' without disclosing side effects (e.g., idempotency, error handling, permission requirements). The enum implies the operations but offers no behavioral depth.
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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it omits necessary details, making it efficient but insufficiently informative.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters with 0% coverage, the description is incomplete. It leaves agents guessing about parameter usage, return values, and operational nuances.
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 add parameter meaning. It only lists operations, ignoring id, reminderDate, and reminderId. No format, purpose, or relationship is explained, forcing inference from names.
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 it manages task reminders with three specific operations (add, remove, list). This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like vikunja_task_comments or vikunja_task_crud.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. For example, it could clarify that reminders are per-task and that this tool complements vikunja_task_crud.
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:

[![vikunja-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/democratize-technology/vikunja-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/democratize-technology/vikunja-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![vikunja-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/democratize-technology/vikunja-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/democratize-technology/vikunja-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/democratize-technology/vikunja-mcp'

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