Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
apollo-mcp

apollo-mcp

by dyngai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

apollo_bulk_complete_tasks

Complete multiple Apollo tasks at once by providing their IDs. Streamline task management without manual updates.

Instructions

Mark multiple tasks as complete by ID.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "task_ids": "<task_ids>"
    },
    "name": "apollo_bulk_complete_tasks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idsYesTask IDs to complete

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states action, but no details on side effects (e.g., irreversible?), error handling for invalid IDs, idempotency, or concurrency limits.

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?

Single sentence, concise and to the point, no redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks usage and behavioral context, making it insufficient for an AI agent to confidently use the tool without external knowledge.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter (task_ids) described as 'Task IDs to complete'. The description adds 'multiple tasks' context but does not significantly enhance the schema's meaning.

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 'Mark multiple tasks as complete by ID' clearly specifies a verb (mark), resource (tasks), action (complete), and method (by ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like apollo_create_task (creation) and apollo_search_tasks (searching).

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 vs alternatives (e.g., apollo_create_task, apollo_bulk_create_tasks) or prerequisites like task IDs must exist. Lacks exclusion criteria.

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