Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
memory-bank-mcp

memory-bank-mcp

by gcorroto
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

memorybank_delegate_task

Assign a task to another project in the ecosystem by creating an external request on the target project board.

Instructions

Delega una tarea a otro proyecto del ecosistema. Crea una petición externa en el tablero del proyecto destino.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "targetProjectId": "<targetProjectId>",
      "title": "<title>",
      "description": "<description>"
    },
    "name": "memorybank_delegate_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesTítulo corto de la tarea
contextNoContexto técnico adicional para que el agente receptor entienda la tarea
projectIdYesID del proyecto origen (quien pide)
descriptionYesDescripción detallada de lo que se necesita
targetProjectIdYesID del proyecto destino (quien debe hacer el trabajo)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.15

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses that a request is created in the destination board, but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether the original task remains, ownership changes, or if delegation is reversible).

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 concise (two sentences). No wasted words, but it could be slightly more structured with separate lines for purpose and outcome.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain return values or success indicators. It does not, leaving gaps for the 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (all parameters described). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema descriptions. Baseline score 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 action ('delegate a task') and the resource ('to another project'). It specifies the result ('creates an external request in the destination project's board'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like route or claim.

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 (e.g., memorybank_route_task). No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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