Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-task-tools

mcp-task-tools

by rog0x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

time_estimator

Break down tasks into subtasks with optimistic, realistic, and pessimistic estimates to calculate a weighted expected duration, including a configurable buffer for uncertainty.

Instructions

Estimate task duration using PERT methodology. Break a task into subtasks, provide optimistic/realistic/pessimistic estimates for each. Returns weighted expected time plus configurable buffer.

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": "<task>",
      "subtasks": "<subtasks>"
    },
    "name": "time_estimator"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskYesName of the overall task
subtasksYesSubtasks with time estimates
buffer_percentNoBuffer percentage to add (default: 20)
unitNoTime unit: hours, days, weeks (default: hours)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates the tool is a computational estimator (non-destructive) and describes return values. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or whether it modifies any state. For a calculation tool, this is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences effectively convey purpose, methodology, inputs, and outputs. No redundant information; every phrase contributes meaning. The structure is front-loaded with the core action and follows with essential details.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately mentions return values. It covers key parameters and methodology. However, it could briefly note that estimates should be positive numbers or that the PERT formula is used, but this is minor. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a tool with moderate complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, providing baseline. The description adds context about PERT methodology and configurable buffer, which enhances understanding beyond field descriptions. It explains the purpose of optimistic/realistic/pessimistic estimates and the buffer parameter, adding value.

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 estimates task duration using PERT methodology, specifying inputs (subtasks with optimistic/realistic/pessimistic estimates) and outputs (weighted expected time plus buffer). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like burndown_calculator or priority_sorter by focusing on time estimation rather than tracking or sorting.

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 for estimating task durations with PERT but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is inappropriate.

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