Skip to main content
Glama
dragosroua

addTaskManager MCP Server

by dragosroua

assess_remove_task_from_project

Remove a task from a project in the Assess realm to manage task organization and project structure.

Instructions

Remove a task from a project in Assess realm.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskRecordNameYesRecord name of the task
projectRecordNameYesRecord name of the project

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:378-388 (registration)
    Tool registration in ListToolsRequestSchema including name, description, and input schema definition.
      name: 'assess_remove_task_from_project',
      description: 'Remove a task from a project in Assess realm.',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          taskRecordName: { type: 'string', description: 'Record name of the task' },
          projectRecordName: { type: 'string', description: 'Record name of the project' }
        },
        required: ['taskRecordName', 'projectRecordName']
      }
    },
  • src/index.ts:689-691 (registration)
    Handler dispatch in CallToolRequestSchema switch statement that validates arguments and calls the removeTaskFromProject method.
    case 'assess_remove_task_from_project':
      this.validateArgs(args, ['taskRecordName', 'projectRecordName']);
      return await this.removeTaskFromProject(args.taskRecordName, args.projectRecordName);
  • The main handler function implementing the tool logic. Currently a mock that returns a success message; in production would interact with CloudKitService to update references.
    private async removeTaskFromProject(taskRecordName: string, projectRecordName: string) {
      // Mock removing task from project via CloudKit
      return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Task ${taskRecordName} removed from project ${projectRecordName}` }] };
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It does not disclose whether this is destructive (likely yes, but unconfirmed), permission requirements, side effects (e.g., task remains in system), error conditions, or response format. The description adds minimal 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and context, making it easy to parse quickly. Every element ('Remove', 'task from a project', 'in Assess realm') earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., destructiveness, permissions), error handling, or what happens post-removal. Given the complexity of modifying project-task relationships, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters (e.g., format of record names, relationship between task and project). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Remove') and the target ('a task from a project'), with the specific context 'in Assess realm' providing domain scope. It distinguishes from siblings like 'assess_remove_task_from_idea' by specifying 'project' instead of 'idea', but does not explicitly contrast with other removal or editing 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., task must exist in project), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'assess_edit_task' or 'assess_archive_task_to_collection', leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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/dragosroua/addtaskmanager-mcp-server'

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