TasksMultiServer

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.2.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific resources and actions, such as create_task vs. update_task_status. However, there is some overlap among the note-adding tools (add_execution_note, add_research_note, add_task_note), which could cause confusion as their differences are subtle and not clearly differentiated in descriptions.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, such as create_project, delete_task_list, and update_action_plan. All tools use snake_case with clear, descriptive verbs, making the naming predictable and easy to understand.
Tool Count3/5
With 23 tools, the count is borderline high for a task management server, potentially feeling heavy and overwhelming. While it covers many operations, it may include tools that could be consolidated or simplified, such as multiple note-adding functions, leading to some redundancy.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive CRUD and lifecycle coverage for tasks, projects, and task lists, including creation, retrieval, updating, deletion, dependency analysis, visualization, and search. There are no obvious gaps; all core operations for task management are well-covered, ensuring agents can handle full workflows without dead ends.
Average 3.2/5 across 23 of 23 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 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 failing
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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Add') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, if notes are editable/deletable, how they're stored or displayed, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place by conveying the core action and target.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions or effects, return values, or usage context. For a tool that modifies data, more information is needed to guide the agent effectively.
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 both parameters ('task_id' and 'content') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain note formatting, length limits, or task_id validation). Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 the verb ('Add') and resource ('execution note to a task'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'add_task_note' by specifying 'execution' note type, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'add_research_note' or explain what an 'execution note' entails versus other note types.
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 'add_task_note' or 'add_research_note'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., task must exist), exclusions, or typical scenarios for adding execution notes, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
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 behavioral disclosure. It states 'Add' implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose permissions required, whether notes are editable/deletable, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's appropriately front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects, doesn't differentiate usage from siblings, and lacks details on return values or error handling. Given the complexity of adding data in a task management context, more context is needed.
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 both parameters ('task_id' and 'content') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain note formatting, length limits, or how 'task_id' relates to other tools. Baseline 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 the action ('Add') and resource ('research note to a task'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'add_task_note' by specifying it's for 'research' notes rather than general task notes. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'add_execution_note', leaving some ambiguity about when to use each note 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_task_note' or 'add_execution_note'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing task), exclusions, or typical scenarios for research notes versus other note types. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Add' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't specify permission requirements, whether notes are editable/deletable, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential 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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format, nor does it differentiate from similar sibling tools. Given the complexity of a write operation in a task management context, more contextual information would be helpful.
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 both parameters ('task_id' and 'content') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so the baseline score 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 the action ('Add a general note') and target resource ('to a task'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'add_execution_note' or 'add_research_note', which appear to be similar note-adding operations for different entities.
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 'add_execution_note' or 'add_research_note', nor does it mention any prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for use. It simply states what the tool does without usage 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'validation and deduplication,' which adds some context about error handling and data integrity, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or response behavior, leaving significant gaps 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the tool's function and purpose without unnecessary details. Every sentence contributes meaning, making it efficient and well-structured.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on success/error responses, side effects, and integration with sibling tools, failing to compensate for the absence of structured behavioral data.
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 the two parameters. The description adds minimal value by implying tags are for 'categorization and filtering,' but does not elaborate on tag formats or constraints beyond what the schema provides, aligning with 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 ('Add tags to a task') and the resource ('task'), specifying the purpose of tagging for categorization and filtering. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'remove_task_tags' beyond the verb difference, which limits full 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remove_task_tags' or other task-related tools. It mentions validation and deduplication as features but does not specify contexts or prerequisites for usage.
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 states this is a creation tool, implying a write operation, but doesn't address critical aspects like permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, error conditions (e.g., duplicate names), or what happens on success. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Create a new project') and includes essential details without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying what is being created and with what attributes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns upon success, error handling, or behavioral nuances like uniqueness constraints. For a creation tool, this leaves critical gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.
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 both parameters ('name' and 'agent_instructions_template') well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning these parameters but doesn't provide additional context beyond what the schema already states (e.g., elaborating on what 'agent_instructions_template' entails). 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.
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 a new project') and specifies the key attributes involved ('with a name and optional agent instructions template'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_project' or 'get_project', which would be needed for a score of 5.
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 'update_project' for modifying existing projects or 'list_projects' for viewing projects. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with insufficient 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create a new task' implying a write operation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with 13 parameters and no output schema.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and enumerates fields. However, it could be more structured by grouping required vs. optional fields separately, and some field names (e.g., 'agent_instructions_template') are lengthy but necessary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like what happens on creation, how to handle dependencies, or what the return value is, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.
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 lists field names (e.g., title, dependencies) but adds no meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between fields or usage examples. Baseline 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'new task', specifying it involves required and optional fields. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_project' or 'create_task_list', which also create resources but different types.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a task_list_id from get_task_list), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'add_task_note' for incremental updates, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
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 only states the action and scope ('all its tasks'). It lacks critical behavioral details: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, required permissions, error conditions, or confirmation prompts. This is inadequate for a destructive 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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the key action and scope efficiently, making it easy to parse and understand immediately.
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?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses essential context like irreversible effects, permissions, error handling, or response format, leaving significant gaps for safe and 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%, so the parameter 'task_list_id' is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond implying the ID is needed for deletion, meeting the baseline for high schema 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 ('Delete') and resource ('a task list and all its tasks'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'delete_project' by specifying the resource type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other deletion 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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the task list ID), exclusions, or related tools like 'delete_project' for context, leaving usage unclear beyond the basic action.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('retrieve') but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, error handling (e.g., if project doesn't exist), or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with mutation siblings like 'delete_project'.
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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's context—no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools that include mutations like 'delete_project'—the description is incomplete. It doesn't address safety (read vs. write), error scenarios, or what information is returned, which are critical for an agent to use this tool correctly alongside its siblings.
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 both parameters fully. The description adds minimal value by mentioning retrieval by 'ID or name', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage nuances beyond what's in the structured fields.
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 ('retrieve') and resource ('project'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_projects' or 'get_task_list', which would require explicit differentiation to earn a 5.
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 'list_projects' or 'create_project'. It mentions retrieving by ID or name but doesn't specify prerequisites, error conditions, or comparative use cases with sibling 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 burden but only states it 'replaces existing action plan'—implying mutation. It lacks details on permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient behavioral context.
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 with zero waste—front-loaded and to the point. Every word earns its place by conveying the core action and effect.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, success indicators, or error cases, leaving significant gaps for agent 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond implying 'action_plan' is an ordered list, which is already clear from the schema's array structure and 'ordered list' description.
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 ('update') and resource ('action plan for a task'), specifying that it replaces the existing plan. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'update_task_status' or 'update_exit_criteria' beyond mentioning 'action plan' specifically.
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 prerequisites (e.g., task must exist), exclusions, or compare to related tools like 'add_task_note' or 'update_task_status' for task modifications.
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 states the tool updates exit criteria by marking them as COMPLETE or INCOMPLETE, which implies a mutation but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.
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 front-loads the core action ('Update exit criteria for a task') and adds specific detail ('marking individual criteria as COMPLETE or INCOMPLETE'). Every word earns its place with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what happens on success/failure, whether updates are idempotent, or how to interpret the response. For a 2-parameter update operation, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
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 both parameters (task_id as UUID, exit_criteria as JSON string/array with criteria, status, comment). The description adds minimal value by hinting at the status values (COMPLETE/INCOMPLETE), but this is already in the schema's enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 the verb ('Update') and resource ('exit criteria for a task'), specifying what gets updated. It distinguishes the action from siblings like 'update_task_status' or 'update_action_plan' by focusing on exit criteria. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that this is about marking criteria as COMPLETE/INCOMPLETE in the context of a list, which could be slightly more specific.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., task must exist), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'update_task_status' for broader updates. Without such context, the agent must infer usage solely from the name and parameters.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'circular dependency validation' which hints at a safety check, but doesn't describe what happens on validation failure, whether the update is atomic, permission requirements, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main action. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'circular dependency validation' entails, what happens on success/failure, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of dependency management and lack of structured safety hints, more context is needed.
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 both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format of dependencies array, validation rules). Baseline 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 the verb 'Update' and resource 'task dependencies', specifying the action and target. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'circular dependency validation', which is unique among sibling tools. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from all siblings like 'update_task_status' or 'update_action_plan' in terms of scope.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or compare with sibling tools like 'analyze_dependencies' or 'visualize_dependencies'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
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 full burden. It states it 'List[s] all projects' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how results are ordered/paginated, or what format the output takes. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the lack of parameters or output format, but it avoids redundancy and wastes no 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list format, project fields included) or behavioral aspects like error handling. For a list operation that might return critical data, more context is needed to use it effectively.
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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are none. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools, as the description needn't compensate for missing schema details.
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 ('projects in the task management system'), making the purpose unambiguous. It also specifies inclusion of 'default projects (Chore and Repeatable)', which adds useful detail. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_project' or 'search_tasks', preventing a perfect 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_project' (for single project retrieval) and 'search_tasks' (for task-focused queries), the description should indicate this is for retrieving all projects without filtering. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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 full burden. It mentions the return values (critical path, bottlenecks, etc.) but lacks behavioral details like performance characteristics, error conditions, or whether it's read-only/mutative. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists outputs. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, 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.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and outputs but lacks context on usage scenarios, behavioral traits, or integration with sibling tools, leaving room for improvement 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 the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format details for scope_id or implications of scope_type choices. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.
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: 'Analyze task dependencies within a scope (project or task list)' with specific outputs listed. It distinguishes from siblings like 'visualize_dependencies' by focusing on analysis rather than visualization, though the distinction could be more explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'visualize_dependencies' or 'get_ready_tasks'. The description implies usage for dependency analysis but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or comparative scenarios with sibling 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 mentions the 'template resolution hierarchy' behavior, which adds some context about how instructions are generated. However, it lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format is (e.g., text, structured data), if there are side effects, or any error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('generate agent instructions') and includes essential details (the hierarchy mechanism). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, 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.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains the generation process but lacks output details, error handling, or usage context. For a tool that likely returns instructional text, the absence of output schema means the description should compensate more, but it only partially does so.
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, with the single parameter 'task_id' documented as 'The UUID of the task to generate instructions for'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 the verb 'generate' and the resource 'agent instructions', specifying the mechanism 'using template resolution hierarchy' with the hierarchy levels listed. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like get_task or get_project that retrieve raw data rather than generating processed instructions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like analyze_dependencies or visualize_dependencies that might also involve processing.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid task_id), exclusions, or compare to siblings like get_task (which might return task details without generated instructions). The context is implied through the parameter but not stated explicitly.
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 states the action ('Retrieve') but doesn't cover critical traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the ID is invalid. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It directly states what the tool does ('Retrieve a task list by its ID') and includes a useful detail ('including all its tasks'), 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.
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 (1 parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks output information (no output schema provided) and behavioral context, which is crucial for a retrieval operation. However, it covers the basic purpose sufficiently for a simple tool, warranting a minimum viable score.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'task_list_id' fully documented as a UUID. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the ID is used to retrieve the task list, but it doesn't provide additional context like format examples or edge cases. Given the high schema coverage, a 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 clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a task list by its ID'), specifying that it includes all tasks. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_projects' or 'get_project' by focusing on task lists. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_project' which might also retrieve task lists, making it a 4 rather than a 5.
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 doesn't mention when-not scenarios (e.g., if you need to list multiple task lists or filter tasks) or refer to sibling tools like 'list_projects' or 'search_tasks' for broader queries. This lack of contextual advice leaves the agent without 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates an existing project, implying mutation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether changes are reversible, error handling (e.g., invalid project_id), or response format. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.
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 front-loads the core action ('Update an existing project') and specifies modifiable fields. There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it 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.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details (e.g., mutation effects, error cases) and usage context. For a mutation tool with four parameters, more completeness would be beneficial, but it meets the minimum viable threshold.
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 four parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by specifying that updates can target 'name and/or agent instructions template', but this doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema descriptions state (e.g., 'project_id' as UUID, 'agent_instructions_template' clearable with empty string). Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 the verb ('Update') and resource ('existing project'), specifying what fields can be modified ('name and/or agent instructions template'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_project' (creation vs. update) and 'delete_project' (update vs. deletion), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_action_plan' or 'update_task_status'.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., project must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot update non-existent projects), or comparisons to siblings like 'get_project' for viewing or 'create_project' for initial setup. Usage is implied but not clearly defined.
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 behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates visualizations in specific formats (ASCII art, Graphviz DOT, Mermaid), which is useful. However, it doesn't mention critical behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., text, file). For a tool with no annotations, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded. It consists of one clear sentence that states the core purpose and key details (scope and formats), with no redundant or unnecessary information. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to understand at a glance.
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 (visualization generation with 3 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the what (visualize dependencies) and how (formats and scope), but it doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, output format details, or integration with sibling tools. Without an output schema, it should ideally hint at the return type, but it doesn't. This makes it adequate but with clear gaps for informed 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?
The description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. It mentions 'scope (project or task list)' and 'ASCII art, Graphviz DOT format, and Mermaid diagram formats,' which loosely map to the 'scope_type' and 'format' parameters. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents these parameters thoroughly (e.g., enums, defaults). The description doesn't provide additional context like examples or edge cases, so it meets 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's purpose: 'Generate a visualization of task dependencies within a scope (project or task list).' It specifies the verb ('generate a visualization'), resource ('task dependencies'), and scope ('project or task list'), making it unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_dependencies' or 'update_task_dependencies', which is why it's not a 5.
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 mentions the scope types and formats but doesn't indicate scenarios where this visualization is preferred over other dependency-related tools (e.g., 'analyze_dependencies' for analysis, 'update_task_dependencies' for modifications). There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative tool references, leaving usage context implied at best.
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 mentions 'supports pagination and sorting' which adds useful operational context beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with empty results. The description adds some value but leaves significant 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?
The description is perfectly concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality and key features. Every word earns its place: it states the action (search and filter), the resource (tasks), the available criteria, and the additional capabilities (pagination and sorting). No wasted words or redundant information.
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 complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic functionality and mentions pagination/sorting, but doesn't address return format, error conditions, or how results are structured. For a search tool with multiple parameters and no output schema, more context about what to expect would be helpful. The description meets minimum requirements but leaves room for improvement.
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 fully documents all 8 parameters. The description mentions the filtering criteria (text query, status, priority, tags, project) which aligns with the schema but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide usage examples. Baseline 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 the tool's purpose: 'Search and filter tasks by multiple criteria'. It specifies the resource (tasks) and the action (search and filter), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_ready_tasks' or 'list_projects' which might also retrieve tasks. The description is specific about what it does but lacks sibling differentiation for a perfect 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_ready_tasks' (which might fetch a specific subset) or 'list_projects' (which retrieves different resources). There's no context about prerequisites, when this search is appropriate, or what makes it different from other retrieval tools in the server.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what the return format looks like. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, criteria, and scope without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a retrieval operation that likely returns complex task data, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'ready for execution' means in practice, what data is returned, or any limitations of the retrieval. For a tool with 2 parameters and likely complex output, more context is needed.
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 fully documents both parameters with their types, enums, and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 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 verb ('retrieve') and resource ('tasks that are ready for execution'), with specific criteria ('no pending dependencies or all dependencies completed') and scope ('within a specified scope'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_tasks' or 'get_project' by focusing on readiness state rather than general search or project retrieval.
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 when needing ready tasks within a project or task list scope, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_tasks' or 'analyze_dependencies'. It provides context about scope but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context beyond the schema by stating that 'Tags that don't exist on the task are silently ignored,' which clarifies error handling and idempotency. However, it does not cover other behavioral aspects like permissions, rate limits, or response format.
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 with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clarifying behavioral detail. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.
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 (mutation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and key behavioral trait (silent ignoring), but could improve by mentioning response format or error conditions for a higher score.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('task_id' as UUID and 'tags' as list/string). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as tag format examples or constraints, but the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.
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 ('Remove tags from a task') and resource ('a task'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add_task_tags' and 'update_task_status'. It precisely defines the operation without being vague or tautological.
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 specifying that non-existent tags are ignored, suggesting it's safe to use even with invalid tags. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_task_tags' or 'update_task_status', nor does it mention prerequisites or 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?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the conditional assignment behavior and project creation side-effect ('creating it if needed'), which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, error conditions, or what the return value looks like (no output schema).
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, dense sentence that efficiently explains the core functionality and assignment logic. Every clause earns its place by clarifying parameter interactions, with zero redundant information or 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?
For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a decent job explaining the assignment logic. However, it lacks information about what happens on success (e.g., returns the created task list ID) or failure modes, which would be important for an agent to use this tool effectively.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context about how parameters interact: it explains the precedence logic between repeatable, project_name, and default assignment, which isn't captured in the schema. This compensates well beyond 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 clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('new task list'), and specifies the project assignment logic that distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_project or create_task. It goes beyond a simple restatement of the name by explaining the conditional assignment behavior.
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 based on project assignment needs (repeatable tasks, chores, or specific projects). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or compare it to alternatives like create_project for standalone project creation without task lists.
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 reveals the validation constraint for COMPLETED status, which is valuable behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention error handling, response format, or whether this is a mutating operation (implied but not stated).
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 zero waste - every word contributes essential information. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately follows with the critical constraint. No redundant or unnecessary phrasing.
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 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the validation constraint. However, it doesn't mention what happens on success/failure or the response format. Given the tool's complexity (status updates with validation), it could benefit from slightly more 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters completely. The description adds context about how the 'status' parameter interacts with exit criteria validation, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 specific action ('Update task status') and adds important context about exit criteria validation. It distinguishes this tool from other update tools like update_project or update_task_dependencies by focusing specifically on status changes with validation rules.
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 provides explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool: 'cannot mark COMPLETED unless all exit criteria are COMPLETE.' This gives clear constraints for the COMPLETED status, helping the agent understand when this operation will fail versus when to use alternatives like update_exit_criteria first.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing the destructive nature ('Delete a project and all its task lists and tasks') and specific constraints about default projects. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the deletion is reversible, 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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the action and scope, the second provides critical exclusion criteria. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the scope of deletion and important constraints. However, it doesn't mention what happens on success/failure or return values, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema.
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 fully documents both parameters (project_id as UUID, project_name as alternative). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation 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 ('Delete a project') and scope ('and all its task lists and tasks'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_task_list' which only removes task lists. It provides a complete picture of what the tool does beyond just the name.
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 NOT to use this tool ('Default projects (Chore, Repeatable) cannot be deleted'), providing crucial exclusion criteria. This helps the agent avoid attempting deletions that will fail, distinguishing it from alternatives like 'update_project' for modifying instead of removing.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/keyurgolani/TasksMultiServer'

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