taskbounty-mcp-server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.4
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action or resource: drafting, funding, listing, submitting, awarding, canceling, checking status, and requesting repo access. No two tools have overlapping purposes; an agent can clearly differentiate between them based on names and descriptions.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., award_bounty, create_bounty_draft, list_open_bounties). No mixing of conventions or ambiguous verbs.
Tool Count5/5
With 11 tools, the surface is well-scoped for a bounty management server. Each tool serves a necessary function in the lifecycle from creation to funding to submission and award.
Completeness4/5
Core operations are covered (create, fund, list, submit, award, cancel), but missing capabilities like updating a bounty description, deleting a funded bounty, or finalizing payment after award (though award_bounty stages it for admin approval). These are minor gaps.
Average 3.9/5 across 11 of 11 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 2 of 2 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 10 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. The verb 'check' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that the tool makes no changes. It also does not mention error handling or what happens with invalid submission IDs.
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 short, with no wasted words. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured. For a simple tool, this level of conciseness is acceptable.
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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and a prerequisite. However, it does not address possible return values beyond the status list, or error conditions, leaving some gaps.
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%, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameter 'submission_id'. However, it provides no additional meaning beyond the parameter name, leaving the agent without understanding what constitutes a valid submission ID or how to obtain it.
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 checks submission status and lists possible statuses (pending, accepted, rejected, paid), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_bounty_submissions', which might also provide status information.
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 mentions the API key requirement, which is a prerequisite, but does not specify contexts 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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states what is fetched but does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, idempotent, no side effects, authentication requirements). For a simple retrieval, minimal transparency is acceptable but not fully disclosed.
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?
Description is a single sentence, front-loaded with purpose. It is concise, though could potentially include a brief note on return format or additional fields. No waste.
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?
Given the simple nature (single param, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and output fields. It is fairly complete but could mention it is a read-only operation to align with behavioral transparency.
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% (one parameter with description). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already documents the parameter.
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 verb 'Fetch' and resource 'full details of a single bounty', listing specific fields (description, criteria, repo URL, reward). It is distinct from sibling tools which either list, submit, or modify bounties.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. While the purpose is clear, it does not mention when to choose this over get_bounty_submissions or list_open_bounties. Implicit from name but no direct guidance.
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 must convey behavioral traits. It mentions the API key requirement but does not disclose what happens if the user has no bounties, pagination behavior, sort order, error handling, or data format. For a list endpoint with no output schema, more behavioral context would be helpful.
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 two short sentences, including the vital API key requirement. Every word contributes useful information without redundancy or fluff.
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 the tool's simplicity (3 optional params, no output schema), the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It covers the core purpose, filtering, and authentication. However, it omits details like default ordering, whether the response includes pagination info, or behavior when no bounties match. For a simple list endpoint, this is minimally sufficient.
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 schema covers all three parameters with descriptions. The description adds 'comma-separated statuses' for the status parameter, which provides formatting guidance. However, the limit and offset descriptions in the schema are already clear (max items, offset). Thus the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
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 lists bounties posted by the authenticated user, with optional status filtering. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_open_bounties, which likely list all open bounties. The verb 'list' and resource 'my bounties' are specific.
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 mentions requiring TASKBOUNTY_API_KEY, which is a usage prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_open_bounties, get_bounty_submissions, or get_bounty_detail. The context from sibling names suggests its niche, but the description itself lacks guidance.
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, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the API key requirement but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether submissions are final), error states, or authentication details beyond the key.
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 sentences: first states purpose, second adds a specific guideline and requirement. No redundant information.
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?
No output schema, moderate complexity (5 params). Description lacks details on return values, confirmation, or post-submission behavior. Adequate but could be more 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?
Schema description coverage is 60%, with task_id and agent_id undocumented. The description adds meaning for external_link (upstream PR URL for code tasks) but does not enhance other parameters. It partially compensates but not fully.
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 'Submit a solution to a bounty', identifying the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'award_bounty' and 'check_submission_status' by focusing on submission.
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 provides context for code tasks (external_link as PR URL) and notes the API key requirement, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_submission_status' or 'create_bounty_draft'.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation and lists return fields, but fails to mention default ordering, pagination behavior, or whether results are sorted. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 efficiently conveys purpose and return data. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with action.
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?
Given three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's basic function and output. Missing details like default limit (though schema says 25) and whether filters are exact or partial matches. Still mostly complete for a straightforward list tool.
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?
Input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (platform, language, limit). Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds no additional insights beyond the schema (e.g., format of language filter).
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 lists 'currently open, funded bounties' and specifies the returned fields (title, reward, repo, language, task id/slug). This contrasts with sibling tools like list_my_bounties (personal) and get_bounty_detail (single bounty).
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 list_my_bounties or get_bounty_detail. Context signals show siblings exist, but the description does not differentiate usage scenarios.
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, so description carries burden. It discloses draft/unfunded status and return values, but no error handling or side effects. Adequate but not rich.
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?
Three sentences: purpose, next step, auth. Front-loaded and efficient with no wasted 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?
Describes return values but no output schema. Missing error responses and behavior for edge cases. Moderately complete for a creation tool.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds no additional parameter info, 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?
Clearly states the tool creates an unfunded draft bounty and returns task_id and slug. Distinguishes from sibling tools like fund_bounty.
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?
Explicitly instructs to call fund_bounty next and notes API key requirement. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios but provides clear next steps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes returned fields (verification_status, external_link, agent_name) and API key requirement. However, no annotations provided and lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or error handling.
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?
Three concise sentences, front-loaded with main action, then details. No verbose or redundant content.
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?
Adequate for a simple list tool with one parameter. Mentions API key and return fields, but could mention pagination or error scenarios for completeness.
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?
Single parameter 'task_id' is already described in schema (100% coverage). Description doesn't add extra meaning beyond implying task_id is a bounty identifier.
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 'List submissions for a bounty you posted,' specifying the verb (list) and resource (submissions), and distinguishes from siblings like award_bounty or submit_pr.
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?
Indicates the tool is for submissions of bounties the user posted and requires TASKBOUNTY_API_KEY, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool creates a session and returns a URL, and crucially states that it does not charge the user automatically – payment requires visiting the URL. This is essential behavioral context. No contradictions.
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?
Three concise sentences: first states purpose, second explains return value, third clarifies payment mechanism and API key requirement. No fluff.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the entire flow (create session, user pays via browser). It covers prerequisites (API key) and outcome (URL). No gaps for agent decision-making.
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 has 100% coverage for 'task_id', with a clear description. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a Stripe Checkout session'), the resource ('funding a draft bounty'), and the output (returns a URL). It distinguishes from siblings like award_bounty and cancel_bounty by specifying the funding step.
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: use when funding a draft bounty. It explicitly notes that payment is not automatic and requires user action, and mentions the required API key. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or offer alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behavioral traits: the award is staged as pending_review, requires admin approval, and needs an API key. This compensates for the lack of annotations.
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 concise with two sentences, no redundancy, and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, authentication, and the two-step approval process. It could mention error handling or return behavior, but it's sufficient for a simple action tool.
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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters (task_id and submission_id), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, but that is acceptable per guidelines.
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 that the tool selects a winning submission for a bounty, distinguishing it from sibling tools like cancel_bounty or fund_bounty. The verb 'Selects' and resource 'winning submission' are specific and unambiguous.
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 mentions the requirement for TASKBOUNTY_API_KEY and explains the two-step process (pending_review then admin approval), providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses short-lived (~1h), read-only nature, and required API key, fully covering behavioral traits beyond the input schema.
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 sentences, front-loaded with key purpose and constraints, no wasted words. Highly efficient.
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?
Given simple two-param tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, behavior, and requirements adequately. Could implicitly state that the URL is returned, but it's clear from 'mint...URL'.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details but provides context (private repos, API key) that aids understanding, though not directly about parameters.
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 mints a short-lived read-only git clone URL for private code-task repos. It uniquely distinguishes from sibling bounty tools by focusing on repo access, not bounty 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 specifies when to use (private code-task repos) and notes read-only access with push to own fork. It implies no alternative among siblings but lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it cancels only drafts, not funded bounties, and requires an API key. Lacks details on side effects or idempotency, but sufficient for a simple cancellation.
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 sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded purpose, efficient.
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?
Given one parameter and no output schema, the description covers tool behavior, constraints, and prerequisites. Could mention return value, but not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context: 'draft' and 'unfunded', beyond the schema's 'draft task id'. This adds value.
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 cancels an unfunded draft, with a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly differentiates from funded/open bounties, distinguishing it from sibling tools like fund_bounty.
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?
Explicitly states when to use (unfunded drafts) and when not to use (funded/open bounties), providing an alternative (manual refund through dashboard). Also mentions the required API key.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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