Skip to main content
Glama
permanu

SuperSkill

by permanu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

task

Destructive

Create, track, and update project work items and view them on a kanban board to organize team progress.

Instructions

Manage project tasks. Supports add, list, update, and board (kanban) views. Tasks are stored as individual files in projects//tasks/.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNoTags
limitNoMax items for list/board (default 50, cap 500)
titleNoTask title (required for add)
actionYesTask action
statusNoTask status
projectNoProject slug (auto-detected if omitted)
task_idNoTask ID e.g. task-001 (required for update)
priorityNoTask priority (default p1)
blocked_byNoTask IDs that block this task
assigned_toNoAssignee: claude-code|opencode|codex|human
workspace_pathNoAbsolute thread workspace directory; must map to this project. Omit only when the server cwd is the thread workspace.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.15.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / workspace_path
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Absolute thread workspace directory; must map to this project. Omit only when the server cwd is the thread workspace.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.13.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Max items for list/board (default 50, cap 500)",
+  "type": "number"
+}
  3. First observedv0.6.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The destructiveHint=true annotation carries the safety signal, and the description adds useful context that tasks are persisted as individual files under projects/<slug>/tasks/. However, it never discloses which actions actually mutate (update vs list/add/board), nor permissions or reversibility, so it partially duplicates structured data rather than enriching it.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the action list and storage note. No wasted words, though the storage detail is marginally secondary.

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 an 11-parameter, multi-action tool with no output schema and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description is adequate but thin. It omits action-to-parameter routing (left to the schema), return shape, and any behavioral caveats an agent would want before invoking update.

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% and each parameter (including enum values and 'required for add/update' notes) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or formatting detail beyond that, which is the correct baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Manage project tasks') and enumerates the supported actions (add, list, update, board). It does not distinguish the tool from lookalike siblings such as 'tickets' or 'spec', so it stops short of 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 names the four actions but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tickets', and no exclusions or prerequisites. Action selection is left entirely to inference from the enum.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools