mcp-task-tools

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

priority_sorter

Sort tasks using Eisenhower, RICE, or MoSCoW frameworks to prioritize by urgency, impact, and effort.

Instructions

Sort and prioritize tasks using proven frameworks: Eisenhower matrix (urgent/important quadrants), RICE scoring (reach, impact, confidence, effort), or MoSCoW method (must/should/could/wont).

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": {
      "method": "<method>",
      "tasks": "<tasks>"
    },
    "name": "priority_sorter"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`method`	Yes	Prioritization framework to use
`tasks`	Yes	Tasks to prioritize. Fields depend on method: eisenhower needs urgent/important booleans; rice needs reach/impact/confidence/effort numbers; moscow needs moscow category string.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes input methods but does not disclose output behavior (e.g., whether tasks are reordered, returned with scores, or grouped). This lack of transparency could confuse an AI agent.

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 sentence that effectively conveys three method options and their requirements. It is front-loaded and concise, though could benefit from bullet points for clarity.

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 two required parameters and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but missing return value information. As there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., sorted list, scores) to be fully complete.

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 clear descriptions for each parameter and their method-specific fields. The description adds a high-level summary but does not provide meaningful extra detail beyond the schema.

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 tool's core purpose: 'Sort and prioritize tasks using proven frameworks'. It lists three specific frameworks (Eisenhower, RICE, MoSCoW), distinguishing it from sibling tools like standup_generator or time_estimator.

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 use for prioritization tasks but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it specify criteria for choosing among the three methods.

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

Deploy Server