Skip to main content
Glama

next_task

Retrieve and mark the next highest priority task as in-progress using the MCP Think Tank server, ensuring efficient task management and focused execution.

Instructions

Get the next highest priority todo task and mark it as in-progress.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
random_stringNoDummy parameter for no-parameter tools

Implementation Reference

  • The execute handler for the next_task tool. Retrieves the highest priority 'todo' task from taskStorage, marks it as 'in-progress', and returns the updated task.
    execute: async () => {
      try {
        const nextTask = taskStorage.getHighestPriority("todo");
        
        if (!nextTask) {
          return JSON.stringify({
            message: "No todo tasks found",
            task: null
          });
        }
        
        // Update task status to in-progress
        const updatedTask = taskStorage.update(nextTask.id, {
          status: "in-progress"
        });
        
        return JSON.stringify({
          task: updatedTask,
          message: "Task marked as in-progress"
        });
      } catch (error) {
        return JSON.stringify({ 
          error: `Failed to get next task: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)}`
        });
      }
    }
  • Registers the 'next_task' tool with the FastMCP server instance in the registerTaskTools function.
    server.addTool({
      name: "next_task",
      description: "Get the next highest priority todo task and mark it as in-progress.",
      execute: async () => {
        try {
          const nextTask = taskStorage.getHighestPriority("todo");
          
          if (!nextTask) {
            return JSON.stringify({
              message: "No todo tasks found",
              task: null
            });
          }
          
          // Update task status to in-progress
          const updatedTask = taskStorage.update(nextTask.id, {
            status: "in-progress"
          });
          
          return JSON.stringify({
            task: updatedTask,
            message: "Task marked as in-progress"
          });
        } catch (error) {
          return JSON.stringify({ 
            error: `Failed to get next task: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)}`
          });
        }
      }
    });
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. It discloses key behavioral traits: it retrieves a task and changes its status to 'in-progress,' indicating a mutation. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if marking affects other tasks), or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool that modifies state.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and action without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying what is retrieved and how it is modified.

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 complexity (a mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains the core action but lacks details on return values, error cases, or how 'highest priority' is determined. For a state-changing tool, more context would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has one parameter with 100% coverage, describing it as a 'Dummy parameter for no-parameter tools.' The description adds no parameter-specific information, but since the tool effectively has zero functional parameters, this is acceptable. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing param details.

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 specific action: 'Get the next highest priority todo task and mark it as in-progress.' It uses precise verbs ('get' and 'mark') and identifies the resource ('todo task'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_tasks' (which likely lists without marking) and 'complete_task' (which marks as completed).

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 implies usage context by specifying 'next highest priority,' suggesting it should be used when prioritizing tasks sequentially. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., vs. 'list_tasks' for viewing without marking) or name alternatives, keeping it from a perfect score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/flight505/mcp-think-tank'

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