MCP Task

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity: list_tasks enumerates tasks, run_task initiates tasks, check_task_status monitors progress, get_task_result retrieves final outcomes, wait_for_task blocks for completion, and cancel_task stops tasks. The descriptions clearly differentiate these functions, making misselection unlikely.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores, such as run_task, check_task_status, and cancel_task. This predictable naming convention enhances readability and usability across the tool set.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the count is well-scoped for a task management server, covering the full lifecycle from creation to completion and cancellation. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat, making the set efficient and focused.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface provides complete CRUD/lifecycle coverage for task management: run_task for creation, list_tasks for listing, check_task_status and wait_for_task for monitoring, get_task_result for retrieval, and cancel_task for deletion. There are no obvious gaps that would cause agent failures.
Average 3.8/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 24 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying 'completed task,' which hints at a prerequisite state, but doesn't elaborate on error handling, rate limits, or return format. With annotations doing heavy lifting, this earns a baseline score for adding some value.
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 with zero waste, front-loading the essential action and target. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
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) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks details on return values, error cases, or sibling differentiation. For a read-only tool with good annotations, this is passable but leaves gaps in usage 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'task_id' parameter fully documented as 'The task ID returned from run_task.' The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating with extra semantics.
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 ('Get') and target ('final result of a completed task'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_task_status' or 'wait_for_task', which might also retrieve task-related information, so it misses the highest score for sibling distinction.
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 implies usage for completed tasks but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_task_status' for pending tasks or 'wait_for_task' for blocking. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer context.
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?
Annotations provide key behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false), indicating it's a safe read operation. The description adds minimal context by implying it returns current statuses, but doesn't disclose details like pagination, rate limits, or what 'all' entails (e.g., system-wide or user-specific). No contradiction with annotations exists.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 moderate complexity (list operation with filtering), rich annotations (covering safety), and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks output details (no schema provided), doesn't explain behavioral constraints like limits, and misses sibling differentiation, leaving gaps for an agent to infer usage.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents all three parameters (status_filter, batch_id, recent_only), including enums and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without compensating value.
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 verb ('List') and resource ('tasks') with scope ('all'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_task_status' or 'get_task_result', which might also involve task retrieval but with different scopes or purposes.
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 like 'check_task_status' for individual tasks or 'get_task_result' for completed tasks. It lacks context on prerequisites, such as whether authentication is needed or if it's suitable for real-time monitoring versus historical queries.
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?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by explaining the return behavior ('Returns a task ID immediately (or batch ID for multiple models)') and the asynchronous nature, which isn't captured in annotations. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or detailed error handling, leaving some behavioral gaps.
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 appropriately sized with three sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the purpose, the second explains batch capability, and the third covers returns. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating usage notes from behavioral details, though it remains 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 complexity of a 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core action, batch capability, and return values, aligning with the annotations. However, it lacks details on error cases, task lifecycle, or integration with sibling tools, which would enhance completeness for this asynchronous operation.
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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics beyond the schema, only implying batch execution with 'Start multiple tasks at once by using an array for model'. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context like default behaviors beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 ('Start a complex AI task') and resource ('AI task'), specifying it involves 'advanced reasoning and analysis with state of the art LLMs'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_task_status' or 'get_task_result' by focusing on initiation rather than monitoring or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'list_tasks' or 'wait_for_task', missing full sibling differentiation.
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 by mentioning 'Start multiple tasks at once by using an array for model', which suggests when to use batch mode, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'wait_for_task' or prerequisites. It hints at alternatives for checking status ('to check status and retrieve results') but doesn't name specific sibling tools or provide clear when-not-to-use criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying what types of tasks can be cancelled (pending or running) and the batch-level operation option. While annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description clarifies the operational scope without contradicting annotations.
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 perfectly concise with a single sentence that contains no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and immediately specifies the two operational modes, making every word earn 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?
Given the tool's destructive nature (destructiveHint=true) and lack of output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool does. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens after cancellation, which would be helpful for a destructive operation.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters (task_id and batch_id) with their descriptions and mutual exclusivity rules. The description doesn't add significant parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Cancel') and target resources ('a pending or running task, or all tasks in a batch'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_task_status, get_task_result, list_tasks, run_task, and wait_for_task. It precisely defines the scope of what can be cancelled.
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 about when to use this tool (to cancel pending/running tasks or entire batches), but doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives. It implies usage for task management but lacks explicit exclusions or comparison with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and closed-world behavior. The description adds valuable context by specifying what is returned (current status, progress, partial results if available), which is not covered by annotations. It does not contradict annotations, as checking status aligns with read-only operations, and it provides useful behavioral details beyond the structured data.
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 front-loaded and efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the action and resource, and the second specifies the return values. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-organized for quick understanding.
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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, return values, and usage hints, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like 'get_task_result', which could improve completeness for an agent in a multi-tool environment.
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, clearly documenting the single required parameter 'task_id' as from 'run_task'. The description adds minimal semantic value by referencing 'task_id' indirectly but does not provide additional details like format examples or constraints beyond what the schema already covers. This meets the baseline for 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 specific action ('Check the status') and resource ('a running task'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'cancel_task', 'get_task_result', 'list_tasks', 'run_task', and 'wait_for_task'. It specifies the scope of what is returned (status, progress, partial results), making the purpose unambiguous and differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by mentioning 'a running task' and referencing 'task_id' from 'run_task', suggesting it should be used after initiating a task. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_task_result' or 'wait_for_task', nor does it provide exclusions or detailed prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context about ignoring already completed tasks and the waiting behavior, which is not captured in annotations. However, it doesn't detail error handling or response format, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a critical behavioral note. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.
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 moderate complexity (waiting behavior with timeout and batch options), annotations cover safety and idempotency well, and schema covers parameters fully. The description adds key behavioral context (ignoring completed tasks). However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values (e.g., what 'complete, fail, or be cancelled' means in output), leaving a minor gap in 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%, so parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it mentions 'task_id' and 'batch_id' but without additional semantics). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the full burden of parameter documentation.
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 ('Wait for a task or any task in a batch to complete, fail, or be cancelled') and specifies the resource (task/batch). It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_task_status' by emphasizing waiting behavior and ignoring already completed tasks, making the purpose specific and well-differentiated.
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?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('Only waits for tasks that complete AFTER this call is made - ignores tasks that were already completed'), which differentiates it from siblings like 'check_task_status' that might check current status. It also implies usage with 'task_id' or 'batch_id' as alternatives, providing clear context for selection.
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-task MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/just-every/mcp-task/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/just-every/mcp-task)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-task MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/just-every/mcp-task/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/just-every/mcp-task)

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/just-every/mcp-task'

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