Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@illodev/taiga-mcp

@illodev/taiga-mcp

by illodev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

taiga_tasks_watchers

Get all watchers assigned to a Taiga task by providing its ID. Monitor who tracks task updates and keep stakeholders informed.

Instructions

List watchers of a task.

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>"
    },
    "name": "taiga_tasks_watchers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesTask ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation ('List') without mentioning authentication needs, response format, pagination, or behavior for nonexistent task IDs. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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, five-word sentence with zero wasted words. It is fully front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it an exemplary concise description for a simple tool.

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?

For a one-parameter list tool, the description is minimally adequate and matches the tool's simplicity. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it fails to clarify the return shape (e.g., list of user objects) or any error conditions, leaving clear gaps.

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% because the only parameter 'id' is already described as 'Task ID' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so it stays at the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('watchers of a task'), clearly defining the operation. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like taiga_tasks_voters, taiga_tasks_watch/unwatch, and watcher tools for other entity types (projects, epics, issues, etc.).

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 intended use case (retrieve the watcher list for a given task) is implied by the description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools such as taiga_tasks_watch/unwatch or clarify exclusions.

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