Taiga MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource-action pair (e.g., list_issues vs. get_issue vs. create_issue), and resource types are clearly separated. The only cross-resource tool is taiga_search, which is explicitly described as full-text search, so no ambiguity exists.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'taiga_<verb>_<resource>' pattern with standard verbs (list, get, create, edit, delete). Plural nouns are used for list operations and singular for others, making the naming scheme highly predictable.
Tool Count2/5
With 31 tools, the server far exceeds the typical well-scoped range (3-15) and even the 'heavy' range (16-25). While each tool has a clear purpose, the large number feels excessive for a single server, especially given incomplete CRUD coverage across resource types.
Completeness3/5
User stories, tasks, and issues have full CRUD operations, but projects, milestones, epics, and wiki pages lack delete operations, and projects and milestones also lack edit operations. These are notable gaps in lifecycle coverage that agents cannot fully work around.
Average 3.5/5 across 31 of 31 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on March 26, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Create a new project in Taiga' with no mention of side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on creation. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no waste, but it is too sparse to be considered well-structured. It conveys the basic purpose but omits useful context that could be included without bloat.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the response looks like or what constitutes success. Additionally, no annotations are present, and the description does not address prerequisites or edge cases. The tool has three parameters, but the description is minimal and incomplete for effective use.
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 description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (name, is_private, description) having descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses the specific verb 'create' and resource 'project', clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling create tools by naming the resource type, though it lacks any additional details that might differentiate it further.
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. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools such as taiga_list_projects for viewing existing projects. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it provides none. It does not mention return values, side effects, authentication needs, or potential errors, leaving the agent completely uninformed about runtime behavior.
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 is front-loaded with the main action. There is no wasted words or redundant information.
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?
The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description is too minimal to provide adequate context for correct invocation, such as required fields, return behavior, or any constraints, making it incomplete for an 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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. However, it adds zero semantic value beyond the schema, making it exactly at the baseline.
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 ('Create') and the resource ('a new epic') within a project. However, it does not differentiate from sibling create tools beyond the resource name, and the phrase 'in a project' is only slight context beyond the tool name.
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, prerequisites, or typical scenarios. The description simply states the action without any context that would help an agent decide to invoke it over similar create tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of revealing behavioral traits. It states 'List issues with optional filters' but doesn't disclose pagination, default ordering, response format, or any side effects (though unlikely). The phrase 'optional filters' is already implied by the schema having no required parameters, adding no new information. Behavior beyond the basic action is opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, front-loaded and free of fluff. However, it is under-specified for a tool with nine parameters and no output schema. While concise, it lacks necessary detail, making it not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of contextual information. It provides only the core purpose and a vague mention of filters. It doesn't explain pagination behavior, default page size, or the shape of the response, leaving significant gaps for an agent invoking this tool.
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 description coverage is 100%, with all nine parameters having detailed descriptions. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond a generic 'optional filters' phrase, which is redundant since the schema already documents each filter. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 a list operation on issues, with the verb 'List' and resource 'issues'. It doesn't provide a specific scope or distinguishing behavior beyond the resource, but it is unambiguous and distinct from get/create/delete issue tools. However, it doesn't differentiate from other list tools (e.g., list_tasks) except by the resource name.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for multiple issues, while taiga_get_issue is for a single issue, nor does it reference taiga_search for broader queries. The only implied usage is 'when you want to list issues', but no exclusions or alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Create a new issue' which implies a mutation, but gives no details about permissions, side effects, return behavior, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 a single concise sentence, which is efficient and front-loaded with the core action. However, it lacks any additional structure or supplementary information, so while not verbose, it is minimally informative.
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?
The tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only provides the basic action, leaving out crucial context such as how to obtain the project_id, whether other fields are required for valid issues, and what the response will contain after creation. This is insufficient for a complex mutation tool.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters with descriptions. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and the schema is adequate.
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 ('Create') and the resource ('a new issue'), and specifies the context ('in a project'). However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like taiga_create_userstory or taiga_create_task, relying on the tool name to convey the specific resource type.
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. It doesn't mention when creating an issue is appropriate compared to creating a task, user story, or other entity, nor does it describe prerequisites such as needing a valid project_id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Create a new task' but does not mention permissions, side effects, return values, or any special behavior. This is a significant gap for a write operation.
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 sentence with zero filler words. Each word ('Create', 'new', 'task', 'in a project') contributes meaning and is front-loaded, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations or output schema, this one-sentence description is grossly inadequate. It provides no context about the task entity, operational behavior, or any guidance beyond the basic action, making it insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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 input schema provides detailed descriptions for all 8 parameters, covering 100% of the parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-level semantics, so it remains at the baseline of 3 without elevating above what the schema already provides.
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 the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'task' and scope 'in a project', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like edit, delete, or list tasks. It directly states the tool's function without ambiguity.
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 taiga_create_userstory or taiga_create_issue. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'List tasks with optional filters' and does not mention pagination behavior (page/page_size), how filters combine, or any authentication/permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool with seven parameters.
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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'List'. Every word is relevant, but it is too sparse to be considered exceptionally helpful as a standalone description. It earns a 4 for efficiency, though not a 5 because it lacks additional useful structure.
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?
With 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain return values, pagination behavior, or how filters interact. A more complete description would mention that results are paginated using page/page_size and can be filtered by project, status, assignee, etc., making it comparable to tools with richer documentation.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 7 optional parameters, so the schema already documents each filter (e.g., project_id, status, assigned_to). The description adds only the general notion of 'optional filters' without specifics, providing no additional meaning beyond the schema, which justifies the baseline score of 3.
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 'List tasks with optional filters', providing a specific verb (list) and resource (tasks), which distinguishes it from sibling operations like taiga_get_task, taiga_create_task, and taiga_delete_task. However, it lacks detail on the scope (e.g., all tasks or within a specific project), though the optional filters imply applicability.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as taiga_get_task for a single task or taiga_list_issues for other work items. It does not state the intended use case, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'List user stories' without confirming read-only behavior, pagination, sorting, or response format. The verb implies reading but little else is disclosed.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is minimal to the point of under-specification, though conciseness itself is acceptable.
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?
With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about what the tool returns and how filters interact. It merely states existence, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke correctly.
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 description coverage is 100%, with all 7 parameters individually documented. The description adds no semantic value beyond 'optional filters' and defaults to the baseline of 3.
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 tool lists user stories, with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the resource name differentiates it from tools like list_tasks or get_userstory.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when to prefer filtering vs other list tools. There is no mention of required project context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden. It only states the creation action and does not disclose return values, authentication requirements, idempotency, validation behavior, or side effects.
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, short sentence that front-loads the action and object. There is no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and easy to parse.
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?
Despite having four required parameters with full schema coverage, there is no output schema and no annotations. The description omits expected return values, error conditions, and any creation constraints, leaving the agent without critical behavioral context.
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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions for name, project_id, estimated_start, and estimated_finish. The description adds only the sprint/milestone synonym and no extra parameter-level meaning, so the 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?
Description uses a specific verb 'Create' with resource 'new sprint' and context 'in a project', clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling listing/getting tools. The term 'sprint' aligns with Taiga's milestone domain, so the purpose is unambiguous.
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 taiga_list_milestones or taiga_get_milestone. It does not mention prerequisites such as project existence or permissions, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, permissions, return values, or any behavioral details beyond the fact that a user story is created. It adds no information beyond the tool's name.
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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words.
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?
With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the operation's effects or return value. It only covers the high-level purpose, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.
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 input schema includes descriptions for all 7 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific information.
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 the verb 'Create' with the resource 'user story' and context 'in a project', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like taiga_create_task or taiga_create_issue.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral details. It does not mention pagination via page/page_size, the need for project_id, or the shape of returned data, and 'all epics' could imply a single complete response rather than a paginated list.
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?
A single, grammatically complete sentence with no redundant 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having a paginated schema and no output schema, the description does not explain how pagination works or what fields are returned. It is too sparse to fully prepare an agent for correct invocation.
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?
All three parameters are described in the input schema (project_id, page, page_size), so the description adds no additional semantic meaning. Baseline 3 applies due to 100% 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 clearly states the verb 'List' with resource 'epics' and scope 'in a project', making its function unmistakable. It differentiates from sibling tools like taiga_get_epic (single) and taiga_create_epic by specifying the collection operation.
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 choose this over alternatives like taiga_get_epic or taiga_list_tasks. The description simply states the action without context or exclusions, leaving usage to be inferred from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose return format, pagination, ordering, or any potential side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the inherent meaning of 'list'.
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 is front-loaded and contains zero filler. Every word earns its place.
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 simplicity and the complete schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks information about the response structure and the nature of the returned members. With no output schema or annotations, additional context about the expected output would improve completeness.
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 fully covers the single parameter (project_id) with a clear description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics, but since schema coverage is 100%, this is adequate.
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 explicitly states the verb 'List' with a specific resource ('members of a project'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list other entities like projects, milestones, or tasks. There is no ambiguity about the tool's function.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description simply states what it does without contextualizing it among the sibling list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It says 'list all wiki pages' but does not disclose that the tool is paginated (via page/page_size), potentially misleading an agent expecting all results in one call.
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, direct sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise and immediately states the tool's purpose.
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?
The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context like pagination limits, sorting, or what data is returned. With no annotations or output schema, more detail is needed for full completeness.
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 already provides descriptions for all three parameters (project_id, page, page_size), so the description adds no extra parameter information. The baseline of 3 applies due to high 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 clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('wiki pages'), and the scope ('in a project'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like taiga_get_wiki_page (single page) and other list tools.
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, such as taiga_get_wiki_page for a single page or taiga_search. It does not mention pagination or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It only states 'get full details', which implies a read-only operation and return of the complete task object, but does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior (e.g., for nonexistent ID), or any rate limits. This lack of context beyond the basic operation is a notable gap.
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 clear sentence that conveys the essential action without any unnecessary words. It is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
For a simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the action and the key input, and 'full details' indicates the expected return. However, it could briefly mention that the task must exist or how to obtain the task_id (via taiga_list_tasks), giving it a slight incompleteness.
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 input schema already fully describes the only parameter (task_id) with the same 'Task ID' wording. The description's 'by ID' adds no additional semantic meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the 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 tool's purpose: 'Get full details of a task by ID'. It uses a specific verb ('get'), identifies the resource ('task'), and specifies the lookup method ('by ID'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like taiga_list_tasks that list tasks.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for retrieving a single task's details after obtaining the ID from taiga_list_tasks, nor does it reference any exclusions or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic list action and fails to mention pagination behavior, the 'closed' filter option, or return format. The schema provides parameter details, but the description itself adds no insight beyond the obvious.
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 sentence, remarkably concise, with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.
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?
For a simple list tool with a rich input schema and no output schema, the description is adequate. It covers purpose and scope. However, it omits usage context such as pagination defaults or filtering options that the schema does not fully convey, though these are relatively minor 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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter including a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameters, so the 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 'List sprints in a project' clearly states the action (list), resource (sprints/milestones), and scope (project). It distinguishes this from single-item tools like taiga_get_milestone and creation tools like taiga_create_milestone.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternative list tools (e.g., taiga_list_tasks, taiga_list_epics). There are no mentions of exclusions or preferred scenarios, leaving usage inference entirely to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only states the action. It does not disclose permissions, idempotency, duplicate slug behavior, or response format. The phrase 'new' implies non-editing, but no meaningful behavioral traits are revealed.
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 with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple create tool and front-loads the key action and resource.
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 3-parameter create tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but thin. It lacks any note about return values, error conditions, or prerequisites like project existence. Without an output schema or annotations, a bit more context would be helpful, but the core operation is clear.
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 description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters properly described (slug pattern/example, content Markdown support, project ID). The description adds no additional parameter context, but per the baseline, this is sufficient since the schema already documents everything.
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 ('Create') with a specific resource ('wiki page') and scope ('in a project'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like taiga_get_wiki_page and taiga_edit_wiki_page. The action is unambiguous and matches the tool name.
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 description implies use when creating a new wiki page, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives such as taiga_edit_wiki_page or taiga_create_userstory. No exclusions or contextual guidance is provided beyond the basic resource type.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get details' without mentioning potential errors, permissions, return format, or behavior when both parameters are supplied. This is minimal beyond the tool's name and lacks transparency about side effects or preconditions.
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?
A single, focused sentence with no redundant information. Every word adds value: 'Get details', 'project', 'by ID or slug'.
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 simple getter, the description is adequate, but it lacks details about the return object, error handling, or whether one parameter is preferred over the other. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the agent has to guess about the response structure and edge cases.
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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both slug and project_id. The description adds no new parameter information, only restating 'by ID or slug' which mirrors the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantics.
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 details of a project using either an ID or slug. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like taiga_list_projects (list all) and taiga_create_project.
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 description implies usage for fetching a single project by identifier, but does not explicitly contrast with taiga_list_projects or mention when alternatives might be preferred. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided beyond the inherent purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that deletion is permanent, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it omits other potentially important behaviors such as whether deletion is cascading, what happens to associated data, or whether special permissions are required.
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 front-loads the action and its key consequence. There is zero fluff or redundant information, making it highly efficient.
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 operation (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It states the purpose and permanence, which is sufficient for correct invocation, though it lacks explicit mention of what response to expect.
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 already fully describes the only parameter (issue_id) with 'Issue ID to delete' and 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 'Permanently delete an issue' uses a specific verb (delete) and resource (issue), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on other resources. The qualifier 'permanently' adds critical detail about the operation's irreversibility, which is not directly visible from the tool name alone.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as taiga_edit_issue or taiga_get_issue. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios where deletion is appropriate, or warnings about using it instead of other operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. The word 'permanently' does disclose a key behavioral trait (irreversibility), but the description does not mention potential side effects (e.g., deletion of associated comments or attachments) or response behavior.
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 phrase with no filler. Every word ('Permanently', 'delete', 'task') contributes meaningful information.
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?
For a simple one-parameter delete operation, the description captures the essential irreversible behavior. It lacks details about return responses and permissions, but the schema and simplicity compensate; however, it's slightly thin for an unannotated mutation tool.
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 input schema already documents task_id with a description and constraint, so the description adds no further parameter semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the 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 uses the specific verb 'delete' with the resource 'task', and the adverb 'permanently' clarifies the irreversible nature. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like taiga_get_task, taiga_edit_task, and taiga_delete_userstory.
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 vs alternatives such as editing the task to mark it done, or other delete operations. There is no mention of prerequisites, permissions, or cautions beyond the word 'permanently'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get details' implies a read-only operation, and 'including its user stories' adds return content context. However, it does not explicitly state non-mutating behavior, potential errors, or permission requirements.
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 one concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy.
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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description communicates the core operation and one key aspect of the response (user stories). However, 'details' is vague and does not enumerate the fields returned, leaving the response format underspecified for an 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 already covers the single parameter milestone_id with a clear description ('Sprint ID'), and the description simply reinforces that retrieval is by ID. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no new semantic value beyond a restatement.
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 ('Get') and resource ('sprint' by ID), clearly distinguishing it from list/create siblings. The additional mention of 'including its user stories' adds concrete scope and further clarifies the purpose.
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 description implies this tool is for retrieving a single sprint when its ID is known, but it does not explicitly compare with taiga_list_milestones for enumerating sprints or taiga_create_milestone for creating them. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that deletion is permanent, a key behavioral trait for a destructive operation. However, with no annotations, it doesn't elaborate on side effects, such as whether related tasks or issues are affected, or what happens if the user story doesn't exist. This is decent but incomplete for a destructive tool.
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 that fully conveys the operation. Every word contributes meaning: 'permanently' highlights irreversibility, 'delete' is the action, and 'user story' is the target. It is concise and front-loaded.
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?
The tool is simple with one required parameter and no output schema. The description and schema together cover the essentials: what the tool does and what input it needs. The 'permanently' term addresses irreversibility. It doesn't cover edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.
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% and the single parameter is described in the schema as 'User story ID to delete'. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('delete') and a specific resource ('user story'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling delete tools for tasks and issues. The word 'permanently' adds important scope, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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?
Usage is implied: this tool is used to delete a user story. There is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion conditions. The description provides a clear action but no contextual usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get full details' without mentioning side effects (none expected), permissions, error handling, or the exact scope of 'full details'. This is a significant omission for a tool with zero annotation coverage, though the read-only nature is implicit in 'Get'.
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 with no wasted words.
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 low complexity of a single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details about return format or potential errors. It provides the essential purpose and input, making it largely complete for this simple tool, but not exceptional.
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 input schema fully describes the only parameter 'issue_id' with type integer and description 'Issue ID'. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 the specific verb 'Get' with resource 'issue' and scope 'full details by ID'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like taiga_list_issues, taiga_create_issue, and taiga_delete_issue by indicating a single-entity retrieval.
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 the tool is for retrieving a specific issue when its ID is known. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tool list makes the distinction clear. The lack of explicit when-not-to-use is a minor gap, so a 4 is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, leaving the description to carry the burden. 'Get full details' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose potential error conditions, authentication requirements, or any side effects. For a simple retrieval tool this is acceptable but not rich.
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 with no wasted words. It is immediately front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it highly scannable.
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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete for a get-by-ID operation. It clearly states what is returned (full details) and the identifier needed. However, it omits any mention of return format or potential edge cases, which is minor for this type of tool.
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 fully covers the only parameter (userstory_id) with a clear description and type. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional semantic meaning. Baseline 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 'Get full details of a user story by ID' clearly specifies the action (get), the resource (user story), and the scope (by ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like taiga_get_issue or taiga_get_project because the resource type is explicitly named.
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 description implies the tool is used when you need full details of a specific user story, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it vs alternatives such as taiga_list_userstories for browsing or taiga_get_issue for other entities. No exclusions are stated, so the context is clear but not fully guidance-oriented.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 correctly indicates this is a mutating operation ('Edit') and highlights the version requirement, which suggests concurrency control. However, it does not state what happens to omitted fields, whether updates are partial or full, or what response to expect—key behavioral context for a write tool.
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 two short sentences: the first states the purpose, the second gives a critical usage instruction. No fluff or redundant information—every word earns its place.
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?
With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is relatively brief. It covers the core purpose and prerequisite but lacks details about return values, field-update behavior, or error conditions. Given the tool's complexity, it is adequate but not fully complete.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema; it only repeats the version requirement already described in the schema property. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'Edit an existing epic', which is a specific verb and resource (edit + epic). It distinguishes from sibling tools like taiga_get_epic (read) and taiga_create_epic (create) by explicitly contrasting with the fetch-first step.
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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Fetch the current version with taiga_get_epic before editing.' This tells the agent the prerequisite and workflow. It implies that this tool is for modifying an existing epic, not for creating or deleting (covered by siblings), although no explicit 'when not to use' statement is included.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It adds the prerequisite that a current version must be fetched first, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose what happens on version conflict, whether the operation is a partial update, or what the return value is, leaving transparency incomplete.
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 concise, single sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes a critical usage instruction. Every word earns its place, with no fluff.
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 (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the essential prerequisite but omits information about the return value and error handling. It is adequate for a simple edit operation but not fully complete.
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 input schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only reinforces the version parameter's prerequisite, but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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's function: 'Edit an existing user story.' It uses a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('existing user story'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like taiga_create_userstory and taiga_delete_userstory. The word 'existing' also implies it requires an ID, further clarifying its scope.
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 explicitly instructs the agent to fetch the current version with taiga_get_userstory before editing, providing clear context for the required workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the reference to 'existing' implies it is for updates rather than creation, so it gives clear context without exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It hints at optimistic locking by requiring the current version, but doesn't disclose side effects, permissions, or error behavior. Minimal but non-zero.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no filler. Every word earns its place.
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?
The schema covers all inputs, and the description provides the key workflow (fetch before edit), making it fairly complete for a simple mutation tool. It lacks return value information but no output schema exists.
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%, with all 11 parameters having descriptions in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 it edits an existing issue, using the specific verb 'edit' and resource 'issue'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like taiga_create_issue and taiga_delete_issue.
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?
It gives a clear usage prerequisite: fetch the current version with taiga_get_issue before editing. This provides context for correct usage, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with create/delete alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the need to fetch the current version first, implying optimistic locking, but does not explain failure modes, authentication needs, or whether fields update individually. Some behavioral context is added but not exhaustive.
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 one concise sentence that efficiently communicates the core operation and a key prerequisite, with no wasted words.
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?
For a simple edit tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description provides the essential instruction (fetch current version first). It adequately covers the operation without needing to explain return values, though it could mention version-mismatch behavior for extra completeness.
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 description coverage is 100%, with every parameter already having a descriptive comment. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, so the 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 tool edits an existing task, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like taiga_edit_userstory or taiga_create_task by naming the task resource explicitly.
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?
It provides explicit guidance to fetch the current version with taiga_get_task before editing, which is a clear sequential prerequisite. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives (e.g., use create for new tasks), but the instruction is actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' clearly indicates a read operation, and 'full details' suggests the complete epic object is returned. However, it does not state that it is read-only, what happens if the epic is not found, or any error conditions. No additional behavioral traits are disclosed beyond what is obvious from the verb.
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 with no unnecessary words. It communicates the essential action and target in a concise manner, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. No filler or redundant information.
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?
For a simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter and high schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It states what it does ('Get full details') and how to target the resource (by ID). However, without an output schema, it does not detail the response structure or error handling, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter epic_id, including its type, description, and minimum value. The description's phrase 'by ID' aligns with the schema but adds no new semantic meaning beyond confirming that the ID refers to an epic. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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: 'Get full details of an epic by ID'. The verb 'Get' and resource 'epic' are specific, and 'by ID' indicates the retrieval scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like taiga_list_epics (browse), taiga_create_epic, and taiga_edit_epic, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 when to use this tool: when you need full details of a specific epic by its ID. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name them, but the 'by ID' phrasing sets clear context that this is for single-item retrieval, not listing or modification. Sibling names like taiga_list_epics and taiga_edit_epic provide indirect contrast, but there is no explicit 'use X instead' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds the qualifier 'accessible', which is useful, but omits any mention of pagination behavior or return format beyond what is implied by the parameters. This is adequate for a simple list operation but not deeply transparent.
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 one concise sentence that delivers the essential purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded and effective.
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?
The tool is simple, the schema covers parameters, and no output schema exists. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the core operation, though it could mention that the response is a paginated list. Given the low complexity, it is adequately complete.
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 descriptions cover 100% of the parameters (page and page_size with defaults and bounds), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but none are needed since the schema fully documents them.
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 lists all accessible Taiga projects. It uses the specific verb 'list' and resource 'projects', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like taiga_get_project (single project) and taiga_create_project.
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 provides clear context that this tool is for retrieving a list of projects. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the purpose is evident in the context of sibling tools, making it obvious when to use this instead of get/create variants.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the behavioral scope (searches multiple entity types), but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe result format, pagination, or limitations. This leaves noticeable gaps.
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?
Single sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the core action ('Full-text search') and appends the entity coverage parenthetically, which is efficient and easy to scan.
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?
For a simple two-parameter search tool, the description covers the main purpose and scope. However, because there is no output schema, the description could ideally mention what the search returns (e.g., list of matching items), but the term 'search' makes this mostly implicit.
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 input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage ('Text to search for' and 'Project ID'). The description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameters themselves, such as text format or project scoping nuance, so it meets the baseline.
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 the specific verb 'search' with a clear resource scope: 'across a project' and enumerates the covered entity types (epics, user stories, issues, tasks, wiki). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are entity-specific CRUD operations.
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 clearly indicates a cross-entity search use case, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like entity-specific list endpoints. Since there is no other search tool among siblings, the usage context is inferred from the entity list rather than explicitly contrasted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It mentions the precondition of fetching the current version, which implies concurrency control, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as auth requirements, error conditions on version mismatch, or the overwriting nature of the edit beyond 'edit.'
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and the second sentence provides critical usage guidance without redundancy.
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?
For a simple edit tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: what the tool does and the mandatory pre-step. It could add notes about error handling or return values, but the description is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.
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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100%), including the version parameter explaining it must be obtained from GET. The description adds minimal extra param information, so baseline 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?
Description clearly states the tool's function ('Edit the content of a wiki page') with a specific verb and resource, and differentiates it from sibling tools like create/get/delete wiki pages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to fetch the current version via taiga_get_wiki_page before editing, which is a clear usage prerequisite. This provides essential context for when to use this tool and the required pre-step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose error behavior, return format, or any side effects. The description adds the two identification modes, which is useful but minimal.
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 with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the purpose and the two identification modes.
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?
For a simple getter with full schema coverage, the description is adequate. It covers the main usage, though it could be slightly more explicit about the exclusivity of the two identification methods (e.g., 'either page_id or project_id + slug'). No output schema exists, so return format does not need to be detailed.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful relationship information: that page_id is an alternative to project_id + slug, which is not explicitly stated in the schema properties. This clarifies the valid parameter combinations.
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 ('Get') and resource ('wiki page'), and clearly identifies two identification methods (by ID or by project + slug). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like taiga_get_issue and taiga_list_wiki_pages.
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 when to use this tool: when you have either a page ID or a project/slug pair to fetch a single wiki page. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the context is clear from the verb and resource.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp_taiga MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jafamo/mcp_taiga/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jafamo/mcp_taiga)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp_taiga MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jafamo/mcp_taiga/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jafamo/mcp_taiga)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/jafamo/mcp_taiga'

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