Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Taskmaster

Taskmaster

by eyaltoledano
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

scope_up_task

Enhance task complexity using AI by defining IDs, strength level, and optional custom prompts for targeted scoping adjustments.

Instructions

Increase the complexity of one or more tasks using AI

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "projectRoot": "<projectRoot>"
    },
    "name": "scope_up_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileNoPath to the tasks file (default: tasks/tasks.json)
idYesComma-separated list of task IDs to scope up (e.g., "1,3,5")
projectRootYesThe directory of the project. Must be an absolute path.
promptNoCustom prompt for specific scoping adjustments
researchNoWhether to use research capabilities for scoping
strengthNoStrength level: light, regular, or heavy (default: regular)
tagNoTag context to operate on

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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 but offers minimal information. It mentions AI usage but doesn't explain what 'increase complexity' entails operationally (e.g., modifies task files, requires write permissions, potential side effects, or response format). This is inadequate for a tool with 7 parameters and no output 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., how complexity is increased, file modifications, error handling), making it incomplete for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, providing clear documentation for all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying AI-driven complexity adjustments, which is already suggested by the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Increase the complexity') and target ('one or more tasks using AI'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'scope_down_task' or 'expand_task' that might also modify task complexity, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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 'scope_down_task', 'expand_task', or 'analyze_project_complexity'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools

Related Tools