Motion MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v2.8.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource or operation (comments, custom fields, projects, recurring tasks, schedules, search, statuses, tasks, users, workspaces). There is no overlap or ambiguity; agents can clearly differentiate between them.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'motion_<resource>' pattern in lower_snake_case, with clear hierarchical naming. No mixing of conventions or vague verbs.
Tool Count5/5
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for a project/task management system. Each tool addresses a core area without excessive granularity or deficiency.
Completeness3/5
While tasks have full CRUD, other resources like projects (no update/delete), custom fields (no update), and recurring tasks (no update) have notable gaps. Comments and schedules are also limited. The surface covers key operations but misses several lifecycle updates.
Average 3.3/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 2.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
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?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether operations are read-only or destructive, pagination behavior, or auth requirements, providing minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but overly sparse. It lacks details about operations or usage, making it less effective than a slightly longer but more informative description.
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?
The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The 4-word description fails to explain the two operations (list and create), pagination, or required content for creation, leaving significant information 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Manage comments on tasks' clearly indicates the tool's domain (comments on tasks) but is vague about specific operations. The name 'motion_comments' already conveys this, so the description offers little added clarity.
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 usage context or alternatives are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus siblings like 'motion_tasks' or 'motion_custom_fields', leaving the agent without guidance.
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?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Manage users', implying write capabilities (create/update/delete), but the schema shows only read operations ('list', 'current'). This misrepresentation lowers transparency. No disclosure about authentication, rate limits, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but not structured. It is front-loaded with 'Manage users', which is the least specific part. The sentence is short but sacrifices clarity due to the vague verb choice. It earns its place as a minimal description but does not prioritize key 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?
Given the tool has 4 parameters with an enum operation and no output schema, the description should summarize the tool's scope (e.g., only read operations) and when to use optional parameters like teamId or workspaceId. It lacks these details, leaving the agent to infer from the schema. The description feels incomplete for a tool that could benefit from a brief usage summary.
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 each parameter already has a description. The tool's description adds no additional context or meaning for the parameters. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says 'Manage users and get current user information', but the tool only supports 'list' and 'current' operations, which are read-only. 'Manage' is a generic verb that overpromises, making the purpose vague. It correctly identifies the resource as users, but fails to specify the actual operations, so it only partially clarifies what the tool does.
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 its siblings (e.g., motion_workspaces, motion_projects). There are no statements about prerequisites, exclusions, or when to use alternatives. The agent must infer usage from the operation enum 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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It only lists operations without disclosing side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits beyond what the schema already indicates.
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 short sentence that front-loads the overall purpose. It is efficient but could benefit from structured breakdown of operations for rapid scanning.
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 output schema, the description does not explain return values or behavior. It also fails to clarify conditional parameter requirements (e.g., projectId needed for get, name for create), leaving gaps for a 7-parameter tool.
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, so the schema already fully explains each parameter. The overall description does not add additional meaning beyond listing the operations, meeting the baseline expectation.
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 manages Motion projects and supports three specific operations (create, list, get). This sufficiently distinguishes it from sibling tools that manage other entities like comments or tasks, though no explicit differentiation is made.
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 via the operations parameter but provides no explicit guidance on when to use each operation or when not to use the tool. No alternatives or exclusions 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 bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only states the basic function, omitting details like result format, pagination, error handling, rate limits, or what happens with empty queries. Key behavioral aspects are missing.
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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. However, given the tool's 6 parameters, a slightly expanded description detailing key parameters or usage could improve usability without harming conciseness.
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?
The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too brief to provide a complete picture. It does not explain return values, default behavior for searchScope, limits, or workspace handling. For a search tool with multiple parameters, 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 documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify the relationship between workspaceId and workspaceName, default searchScope, or the fixed operation value. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 searches Motion tasks and projects by query, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like motion_tasks and motion_projects which are for direct operations, not search.
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. For example, whether to use motion_search over motion_tasks or motion_projects for browsing is not mentioned. No when-not or alternative tools are referenced.
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, and the description fails to disclose important behavioral traits beyond listing operations. For example, it does not mention that 'delete' is destructive, that 'move' requires specific parameters, or any rate limits or authentication requirements. The schema includes some parameter behavior details, but the description itself adds minimal transparency.
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 is front-loaded with the main purpose ('Manage Motion tasks') and concisely lists all supported operations. It is efficient and avoids unnecessary detail, though it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.
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 (19 parameters, 8 operations, no output schema), the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, operation-specific prerequisites, or how to combine parameters effectively. The schema compensates somewhat, but the description lacks essential context for an agent to fully understand tool capabilities.
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 parameter semantics. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the operation list; it does not clarify parameter interactions or provide context not already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 that the tool manages Motion tasks and enumerates all supported operations (create, list, get, update, delete, move, unassign, list_all_uncompleted). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like motion_comments or motion_projects, as it covers the core CRUD and lifecycle operations for tasks.
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 lists the operations but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as motion_projects or motion_schedules. While the sibling names imply usage boundaries, the description does not state conditions or exclude inappropriate contexts.
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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists required params per operation without discussing side effects (e.g., deletion is irreversible, creation modifies schema), permissions, rate limits, or return values. Minimal behavioral context beyond operation names.
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 efficient, using a structured format with colons and line breaks to organize operation-specific requirements. It front-loads the general purpose and packs much information into a compact form, though the '(type)' and '[]' notation may be slightly unclear.
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 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers required params per operation but lacks details on return values, error handling, idempotency, or outcome descriptions (e.g., what happens when add_to_project is called). Adequate for basic invocation but not fully complete.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by consolidating required params per operation (e.g., 'list: workspaceId or workspaceName') and highlighting conditional requirements (e.g., 'options[] also required for select/multiSelect'), which is not present in a single view in 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 starts with a clear verb+resource statement: 'Manage custom fields for tasks and projects.' This immediately distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like motion_tasks or motion_projects, which focus on 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists required parameters per operation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like motion_projects or motion_tasks. Usage is implied by the tool's focus on custom fields, but no when-not-to or alternative guidance is provided.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses supported operations but omits behavioral traits like idempotency, required permissions, or side effects. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but lacks depth.
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, front-loaded with key information. No wasted words.
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 output schema, the description does not explain return values. For a list/get tool, output (workspace list or details) is somewhat inferable but not explicit. Adequate for low complexity.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
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?
Clearly states the tool manages Motion workspaces and supports two specific operations (list and get). The name and description together differentiate from siblings like motion_projects or motion_tasks.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the operation enum implies usage (list vs get), it doesn't explain prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
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, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns all schedules with no filtering options, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention potential pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements.
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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, the second adds a constraint. Every word earns its place. No superfluous content.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and constraint. It could mention if the result set is paginated or limited, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a basic list operation.
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% coverage with one enum parameter 'operation'. The description's claim of 'no filtering options' aligns with the schema but adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already documents the parameter.
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 retrieves all schedules with specific fields (weekly working hours and time zones). The verb 'Get' and resource 'all schedules' are precise. It distinguishes from sibling tools that cover different resources.
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 via 'Get all schedules' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No guidance on 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the operation as a read ('Get'), which is transparent. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The lack of annotations is mitigated by the simple nature of the 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 a single, well-formed sentence that conveys the tool's purpose efficiently. Every word is earned, and it is front-loaded with the action and resource.
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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies what the tool returns (statuses) and the scope (workspace). However, it could briefly mention the return format or typical use cases for full 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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for workspaceId (optional, returns all if not provided). The description adds 'for a workspace' but does not elaborate on the default behavior beyond what the schema already states. Since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Get' and the resource 'available task/project statuses', scoped to 'for a workspace'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like motion_tasks and motion_projects which deal with entities rather than their statuses.
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 retrieving statuses but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not or alternative tools are mentioned. However, the purpose is straightforward enough that an agent can infer 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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states required params per operation; lacks details on side effects (e.g., what happens on deletion, permissions needed, rate limits, or response 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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then required params. No redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.
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 tool with 15 parameters and nested objects, description explains required params per operation but omits return value information (no output schema) and behavioral context. Adequate but incomplete for complex usage.
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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by grouping parameters per operation and specifying which are required, e.g., 'list: workspaceId or workspaceName' and 'create: workspaceId/workspaceName + name + assigneeId + frequency'. This goes beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.
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?
Description clearly states 'Manage recurring tasks' in first sentence, with specific operations (list, create, delete) and required parameters per operation. Distinguishes from sibling motion_tasks by focusing on recurring tasks.
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?
Explicitly lists required parameters for each operation (list, create, delete), providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, does not explicitly exclude use for non-recurring tasks or compare with motion_tasks.
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:

[![motion-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rrvdiegor-sketch/motion-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rrvdiegor-sketch/motion-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![motion-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rrvdiegor-sketch/motion-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rrvdiegor-sketch/motion-mcp-server)

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/rrvdiegor-sketch/motion-mcp-server'

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