Skip to main content
Glama
kazuph

@kazuph/mcp-taskmanager

by kazuph

list_requests

Retrieve a summary of all requests and their tasks within the MCP server for task management. Quickly access basic information and task overviews for efficient monitoring and organization.

Instructions

List all requests with their basic information and summary of tasks. This provides a quick overview of all requests in the system.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler method in TaskManagerServer class that loads tasks, formats a summary table of all requests, and returns structured data including request summaries with task counts.
    public async listRequests() {
      await this.loadTasks();
      const requestsList = this.formatRequestsList();
      return {
        status: "requests_listed",
        message: `Current requests in the system:\n${requestsList}`,
        requests: this.data.requests.map((req) => ({
          requestId: req.requestId,
          originalRequest: req.originalRequest,
          totalTasks: req.tasks.length,
          completedTasks: req.tasks.filter((t) => t.done).length,
          approvedTasks: req.tasks.filter((t) => t.approved).length,
        })),
      };
    }
  • MCP tool call dispatcher for 'list_requests': validates input with schema and invokes the listRequests method on TaskManagerServer.
    case "list_requests": {
      const parsed = ListRequestsSchema.safeParse(args);
      if (!parsed.success) {
        throw new Error(`Invalid arguments: ${parsed.error}`);
      }
      const result = await taskManagerServer.listRequests();
      return {
        content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }],
      };
    }
  • Zod schema defining empty input object for the list_requests tool.
    const ListRequestsSchema = z.object({});
  • index.ts:215-223 (registration)
    Tool object definition for 'list_requests' including name, description, and input schema, used for MCP tool listing.
    const LIST_REQUESTS_TOOL: Tool = {
      name: "list_requests",
      description:
        "List all requests with their basic information and summary of tasks. This provides a quick overview of all requests in the system.",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {},
      },
    };
  • index.ts:683-696 (registration)
    Registers all tools including LIST_REQUESTS_TOOL in the MCP server's listTools response.
    server.setRequestHandler(ListToolsRequestSchema, async () => ({
      tools: [
        REQUEST_PLANNING_TOOL,
        GET_NEXT_TASK_TOOL,
        MARK_TASK_DONE_TOOL,
        APPROVE_TASK_COMPLETION_TOOL,
        APPROVE_REQUEST_COMPLETION_TOOL,
        OPEN_TASK_DETAILS_TOOL,
        LIST_REQUESTS_TOOL,
        ADD_TASKS_TO_REQUEST_TOOL,
        UPDATE_TASK_TOOL,
        DELETE_TASK_TOOL,
      ],
    }));
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool lists requests with 'basic information and summary of tasks,' which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify details like pagination, sorting, filtering, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and utility. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying the action and scope. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the lack of parameters or output details, but overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 (simple list operation with 0 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects like return format, error handling, or system constraints. For a tool with no structured data support, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement in providing more context.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't add parameter-specific information, which is appropriate here. Since the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, this score reflects that the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps, and it aligns well with the lack of parameters.

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's purpose: 'List all requests with their basic information and summary of tasks.' It uses specific verbs ('list') and resources ('requests'), and mentions the scope ('all requests in the system'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_next_task' or 'request_planning', which also involve request-related operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 minimal guidance: it says this tool 'provides a quick overview of all requests,' implying it's for summary purposes. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_next_task' for a specific task or 'request_planning' for planning-related actions), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of explicit context limits its usefulness for an agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/kazuph/mcp-taskmanager'

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