@duytnb79/asana-mcp

by duytnb26

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: single task retrieval, task listing, project listing, section listing, commenting, creating, updating, and searching. Even list_tasks and search_tasks are clearly differentiated by scope (project vs. workspace).
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., get_task, list_projects, add_comment, create_task). No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped for an Asana integration, covering tasks, projects, sections, and comments without unnecessary bloat. Each tool serves a clear purpose.
Completeness4/5
The core task lifecycle is covered with get, list, create, update, and search, but missing a delete_task operation leaves a notable gap. Sections and projects are only listable, but that may be acceptable for the server's scope.
Average 3.4/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 2.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
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

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 mentions 'This operation writes to Asana,' which alerts to mutation, but omits other important behavioral traits such as authentication needs, potential conflicts between parameters (e.g., due_at vs due_on), or what happens to existing data.
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?
While the two sentences are short, they are under-specified for a tool with 18 parameters. The second sentence is largely redundant with the first, and the description lacks necessary details, making it an example of under-specification rather than effective conciseness.
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 (18 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is entirely inadequate. It does not address required fields, parameter dependencies, return values, or potential side effects, leaving the agent without sufficient context 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?
The description provides zero information about any of the 18 parameters. With schema description coverage at only 39%, the low coverage is not compensated at all. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's own field 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?
The description clearly states 'Create an Asana task' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_task, update_task, and search_tasks, which handle different operations.
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, such as when to use update_task instead, or prerequisites like requiring a workspace/project. The description simply states the action without contextual usage cues.
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 behavior but only states 'This operation writes to Asana,' which is generic. It does not explain whether unspecified fields are preserved, how null or empty strings affect fields, or any side effects beyond writing.
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 short and front-loaded, but the second sentence ('This operation writes to Asana.') is redundant with the first and does not earn its place. A more compact but informative phrasing would be an improvement.
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?
For a 14-parameter write operation with no annotations and low schema coverage, this description is severely incomplete. It omits behavioral nuances like partial updates, clear-field semantics, and the meaning of complex fields, making it inadequate for reliable tool 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 description coverage is only 29%, and the description adds no parameter-level detail. It does not clarify ambiguous parameters like custom_fields, resource_subtype, approval_status, or the date fields, leaving agents with insufficient information for correct invocation.
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 identifies the operation as updating fields on an Asana task and notes it is a write operation. This distinguishes it from read-focused siblings like get_task and search_tasks, though it does not explicitly contrast with create_task.
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 like create_task for new tasks or get_task for reading. There is no mention of prerequisites such as having the task GID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 does usefully reveal that search indexing is eventually consistent and may lag writes by 10-60 seconds, which is a significant behavioral trait. However, it omits other potentially relevant behaviors such as pagination, result ordering, or search scope limitations.
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?
Two short sentences with no redundant content. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds a critical operational caveat. The description is compact and front-loaded.
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 a 10-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides only the basic purpose and a key timing caveat. It lacks usage guidance, return-value descriptions, and details on how to combine filters, making it adequate but not fully context-complete.
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 description provides no parameter-specific information; it relies entirely on the input schema, which covers 70% of parameters (7 of 10 have descriptions). While the schema does a decent job for most parameters, the description adds no extra meaning beyond this and leaves three parameters undocumented, though they are fairly self-explanatory.
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 opens with a clear action verb 'Search' and the resource 'tasks', scoped to 'an Asana workspace'. This differentiates it from get_task (retrieve a single task) and list_tasks (likely list all tasks), though it does not explicitly name these alternatives.
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 is given about when to use this tool versus sibling tools like list_tasks or get_task. The only contextual hint is the eventual-consistency caveat, which implies caution after writes, but there is no statement of the intended use case or exclusions.
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 states a read operation ('Get'), but does not describe what 'details' include, whether default fields are limited, how opt_fields affects the response, or any error/rate-limit behavior.
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, efficiently worded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose without redundant information, earning every word.
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?
While the tool is simple with only two parameters, the description is incomplete regarding the response: it does not explain what 'details' means, what fields are returned by default, or that opt_fields expands the output. Since there is no output schema, additional context about return values would be beneficial.
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%, so the schema already explains both parameters ('Task GID.' and 'Additional Asana task fields to return.'). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond confirming the single-task scope, thus meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('details for one Asana task'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_tasks and search_tasks by emphasizing the singular scope.
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 use when you need details for a single task by specifying 'one Asana task', but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like list_tasks or search_tasks, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses workspace scoping and offset pagination, but omits default filtering behavior (e.g., archived projects), response shape, and potential rate limits. Adequate for a simple read-only listing tool, but not exhaustive.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, resource, scope, and pagination in under 10 words.
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?
The schema fully documents all 5 parameters, but there is no output schema and no annotation safety cues. The description mentions pagination but not default archived filtering, cursor/response convention, or other behavior not captured by the schema. Functional 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('Asana projects'), and a scope ('in a workspace'), plus the pagination mechanism. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tasks and search_tasks.
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 clearly implies when to use the tool (listing projects in a workspace), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as search_tasks. No exclusions or preconditions are given.
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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses ordering ('project priority order') and scope ('in an Asana project'), but it omits key behavioral traits such as pagination via limit/offset, the default inclusion of completed tasks, and the response shape. These gaps are significant for a tool with no annotation safety hints.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word adds value, with no redundant or filler content.
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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose but does not mention pagination, filtering via completed_since, or the default behavior for completed tasks. The schema compensates for parameter details, but the overall description could be more complete for an agent to understand the full behavior.
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 provides descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents.
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 action ('List tasks'), the resource ('in an Asana project'), and a specific behavior ('in project priority order'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects, list_sections, and search_tasks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that this tool is for listing tasks within a specific project, which implies its primary use. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives such as search_tasks for filtered searches or get_task for a single task, leaving some ambiguity regarding exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description highlights offset pagination, a behavioral detail beyond the tool's name. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe error cases, auth requirements, or response behavior—leaving some gaps.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the operation, the resource scope, and a key behavior (offset pagination) in a concise and well-structured manner.
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?
The tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description adequately identifies the operation and pagination but does not describe the return format, default fields, or how pagination responses are structured. While it is sufficient for a simple list operation, it leaves some contextual gaps for an agent needing to parse responses.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the concept of 'offset pagination,' which reinforces the purpose of the offset parameter, but this is minimal and largely redundant with the schema's own parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Offset returned by a previous list_sections call').
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: 'List sections in an Asana project with offset pagination.' It uses a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('sections in an Asana project'), and uniquely distinguishes from sibling tools like list_tasks and list_projects, which cover different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: it lists sections within a specific Asana project. Although it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, the sibling tool names (get_task, list_tasks, etc.) confirm there is no other section-listing tool, making the usage context clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explicitly states 'This operation writes to Asana,' which correctly indicates a mutating operation. However, it does not elaborate on additional behavioral aspects such as permissions, reversibility, or side effects beyond the write 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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences that immediately state the action and the write nature. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or extraneous 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 simple, well-scoped tool, the description plus schema cover the essential inputs and operation. It does not describe the return value, which would be helpful given the lack of an output schema, but the tool's purpose and parameters are complete. The shortfall is minor, so a score of 4 is warranted.
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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (text, task_gid, opt_fields). The description's mention of 'plain-text' restates the schema's text description without adding further semantic value. Therefore, the baseline of 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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Add a plain-text comment to an Asana task.' It uses a specific verb ('add'), identifies the resource ('comment to Asana task'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_task or update_task, which handle different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context for when to use the tool (when wanting to add a comment to a task), though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. The context is straightforward and unambiguous.
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:

[![asana-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/duytnb26/asana-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/duytnb26/asana-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![asana-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/duytnb26/asana-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/duytnb26/asana-mcp-server)

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/duytnb26/asana-mcp-server'

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