Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
freispace MCP Server

freispace MCP Server

Official
by freispace
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_project_tasks

Retrieve a project's task status with all tasks and bookings, summarized by open, done, and overdue.

Instructions

Task status of one project: all tasks on the project and its bookings, with a summary of how many are open, done and overdue.

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": {
      "project_name": "<project_name>"
    },
    "name": "get_project_tasks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_nameYesProject name. Partial names match; the first match is used.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It states the tool returns tasks, bookings, and summary, but does not mention the partial-name matching behavior (which is only in parameter schema). It also does not disclose if it is read-only, though that can be inferred. It adds value beyond structured fields but lacks full transparency.

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 concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does. It mentions the summary counts, which is crucial. There is no missing information about return values or side effects, but could be slightly improved by explicitly noting the matching 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter description already explains the partial-name matching. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond repeating 'one project', which is already implied by the param. 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 retrieves task status for one project, including all tasks, bookings, and a summary of open/done/overdue counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_open_tasks' (which likely spans projects) and 'get_my_tasks' (personal).

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 use when needing task details for a specific project ('of one project'). It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context of siblings gives some guidance.

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