Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
atlas-brief-mcp

atlas-brief-mcp

by drproof
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

atlas_tasks

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists design and development checklist items extracted from documentation, letting you filter open, done, or all tasks by owner so you can inspect granular action items in specs.

Instructions

List design and development action items (- [ ] / - [x] checkboxes) extracted from all documentation sections.

Use this tool to inspect granular checklist items embedded in specs. To inspect numbered
high-level Work Orders (`Work Order N — ⬜ OPEN / ✅ DONE`), use `atlas_status` instead.

Behavior & Output:
- Read-only query over indexed Markdown checkboxes.
- Returns a JSON string `{status, owner, count, tasks: [{text, done, owner, tags, anchor, path, line}]}`.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ownerNoOptional owner handle to filter tasks assigned via `@name` tags in Markdown (e.g. '@design' or 'design'). Omit or pass null for all owners.
statusNoFilter tasks by completion state: 'open' for unchecked `- [ ]` items (default), 'done' for checked `- [x]` items, or 'all' for both.open

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / owner / description
      Added value: +"Optional owner handle to filter tasks assigned via `@name` tags in Markdown (e.g. '@design' or 'design'). Omit or pass null for all owners."
    • addedInput schema / properties / status / description
      Added value: +"Filter tasks by completion state: 'open' for unchecked `- [ ]` items (default), 'done' for checked `- [x]` items, or 'all' for both."
    • addedInput schema / properties / status / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "open",
+  "done",
+  "all"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not prove safety. It goes beyond them by naming the underlying data source (indexed Markdown checkboxes) and sketching the return payload shape, which annotations cannot convey. It does not cover pagination or handling of unindexed/stale docs, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

Purpose, sibling routing, and behavior are front-loaded in that order, with the alternative named before details an agent doesn't need yet. The 'Read-only query' line partly restates the annotations, which is a minor redundancy in an otherwise tight definition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Two optional, fully documented parameters and an existing output schema mean the agent needs little more than routing guidance. The description supplies the sibling disambiguation and data source that structured fields cannot, so nothing needed to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 100% with per-parameter text and an enum on `status`, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's `- [ ]` / `- [x]` notation loosely reinforces the open/done distinction already spelled out in the schema, adding little new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List design and development action items') and pins down the data source ('checkboxes extracted from all documentation sections'). It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling `atlas_status`, so an agent can pick between granular checklist items and numbered Work Orders without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('inspect granular checklist items embedded in specs') and an explicit alternative with its own defining syntax ('numbered high-level Work Orders ... use `atlas_status` instead'). The selection rule is fully determined, not inferred.

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