Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Context Cockpit

Context Cockpit

by ritaprieto900
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

cockpit_add_task

Add a new actionable task to the active project checklist, enabling AI agents and humans to coordinate via the shared Git-native blackboard.

Instructions

Adds a new actionable task to the active project checklist.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "task_text": "<task_text>"
    },
    "name": "cockpit_add_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_textYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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 implies a mutation ('adds') and scoping to the active project, but says nothing about persistence, permissions, ordering/deduplication, or what happens on success. This is a significant gap for a write tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the action front-loaded and no waste. It is appropriately brief for a one-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a simple single-param tool this is close to adequate, but the lack of any behavioral or scoping detail on a mutation with no annotations leaves gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'Actionable task' gives loose meaning to task_text but adds no format, length, or content guidance beyond the parameter name itself.

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 ('adds') and resource ('a new actionable task to the active project checklist'), which is clear. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like cockpit_toggle_task or cockpit_get_ready_tasks, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no prerequisites such as what 'active project' means or how it is selected. Alternatives are not mentioned.

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