wrapper-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action (assign, attach, create, get, list, relate, tag, update) on tasks. There is no overlap; every verb clearly defines a different operation, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a perfect 'task.verb' pattern using lowercase and dot separation. This consistency makes the tool surface predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped for a task management system. Each tool covers a necessary operation without redundancy or bloat.
Completeness5/5
The tools provide comprehensive coverage for task lifecycle: create, read (get/list), update, plus assignment, tagging, relating, and attachments. The only potential gap is an explicit delete, but the update tool can handle status changes and soft deletion if needed. Overall, it feels complete for the domain.
Average 3.9/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- No commit activity data available
- 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 MIT License.
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?
The description claims idempotency, matching annotations, but omits the ability to remove tags (as shown in the schema). It also implies tags must start with 'claude-*', which is not enforced by the schema and may mislead agents about allowed tag patterns.
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 extremely concise, with no wasted words. However, it sacrifices completeness, leaving out critical details such as the remove capability. The brevity is a mixed blessing.
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 three parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify both add and remove behavior. It only covers add, and the 'claude-*' restriction is unsupported. The agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior from this description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description must explain parameters. It partially covers the 'add' parameter by mentioning 'merge', but fails to describe the 'remove' array or the required 'id' parameter. The 'claude-*' prefix adds confusion rather than clarity.
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 states the tool merges tags into a task, which is clear and distinct from sibling tools that handle assignment, attachment, creation, etc. The verb 'merge' appropriately conveys both adding and removing, but the mention of 'claude-*' tags adds unnecessary specificity.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is the only tag-related tool among siblings, the description does not clarify its role relative to others, such as task.update, or when to prefer task.tag over direct manipulation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate non-destructive, non-read-only behavior. The description adds context about the multipart request and journal entry creation, complementing annotations without contradiction.
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 that directly states the action and method, with no extraneous information. Highly efficient and front-loaded.
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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action but omits parameter details and success/failure outcomes, making it minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no explanation of the 'id' or 'files' parameters—their purpose, format, or constraints—leaving the agent to infer from names alone.
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 'Upload', the resource 'task', and the method 'single multipart request (one journal entry)', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like task.assign or task.create.
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 attaching files to a task but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' adds no new behavioral info beyond confirming. The 'newest first' order is a useful default detail.
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, front-loaded with purpose. 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?
For a tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details about filtering (projectId, includeWatching) and sort options. The schema descriptions fill some gaps but the overall description could be more 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?
The input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters, so the description adds no additional semantic value. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given schema coverage.
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 lists tasks assigned to the user, ordered newest first. This verb-resource combination (list tasks) is distinct from sibling tools like task.get (single task) or task.create.
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?
The description implies when to use (when needing a list of assigned tasks) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools. However, sibling names are sufficiently distinct.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark as read-only and idempotent. Description adds that response includes journal, attachments, sub-issues, relations, which goes beyond annotations.
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?
One sentence conveying full scope with a list of included items. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with purpose.
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?
For a simple get tool with one parameter and no output schema, description covers what the response contains. Annotations cover behavioral aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but description does not clarify that 'id' is the task ID. Parameter is self-explanatory from name, but description could add context.
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 it gets full task detail including journal, attachments, sub-issues, relations. Distinguishes from sibling tools like task.list (which lists tasks) and task.update (which modifies).
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?
Implicitly indicates use when needing detailed information on a single task. Lacks explicit when-not or alternatives, but context with siblings makes it clear.
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?
Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds context about possible relation types but does not disclose further behavioral traits like mutability or reversibility.
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 with a parenthetical, efficiently conveying purpose and usage guidance without unnecessary 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?
Tool has 3 parameters and no output schema. Description covers purpose and usage but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or link behavior, leaving gaps for a complete understanding.
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?
Description mentions relation types (relates, blocks, duplicates) which hints at the relationType parameter's possible values, but does not explicitly map to schema parameters. With 0% schema coverage, additional param info is minimal.
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 purpose: 'Link this task to another' with specific relation types (relates, blocks, duplicates, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings like task.create or task.assign.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises to prefer this tool over creating a duplicate when an existing task covers the same issue (R8). This provides clear guidance on when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds that non-null fields are batched into a single journal entry, implying atomicity. Annotations already indicate non-readonly and non-destructive. No contradictions; warning about double-calling adds useful context.
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, front-loaded with purpose and batched behavior. Every sentence adds value; no filler.
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?
For a simple mutation tool with annotations and schema, the description covers key usage constraints and the batched nature. No output schema, but the return is likely standard. Completeness is high for the complexity level.
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 50%, and the description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the batched nature. The schema itself provides descriptions for description, status, comment, and enum for priority, so the description does not add meaningful extra meaning.
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 applies 'ONE batched change to a task' and lists specific use cases (starting, finishing, fixing title/priority). It distinguishes itself from siblings like task.create and task.get by focusing on updates.
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?
The description provides explicit 'use for' scenarios and a prohibition ('Do NOT call twice in a row for the same task'). However, it does not name alternative tools for related operations (e.g., task.assign for assignments).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true; description expands on this by noting irreversibility and potential access loss for previous assignee. No contradiction.
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: purpose, behavioral warning, usage rule. No unnecessary text, front-loaded with essential information.
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?
Covers irreversible nature and usage constraint, but does not explain kind parameter or return behavior. However, given annotations and schema enums, it is sufficient for safe agent use.
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?
Description does not add meaning beyond schema for id and assigneeId; only reiterates the const on userExplicitlyRequested already in schema. With 50% coverage, description fails to compensate for undocumented parameters.
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 verb 'transfer assignment' and resource, distinguishing from sibling tools. Includes important behavioral note about irreversibility.
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 states that it should only be called with explicit user instruction and that userExplicitlyRequested must be true. Does not mention alternatives but provides sufficient contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate non-readonly, non-destructive. The description adds that previewedHash is required and that the client refuses mismatches, disclosing a key behavioral constraint beyond annotations.
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 succinct sentences convey purpose and critical usage constraint without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.
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 no output schema, the description covers the creation flow, precondition, and one key parameter. It is complete enough for an agent to use effectively, though more detail on error states could push it to 5.
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?
The description adds essential meaning for previewedHash (SHA-256, mismatch refusal) and sets the overall workflow context. Schema covers other parameters well (63% coverage), so the description enhances rather than repeats.
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 creates a new bug or task via a specific unified flow. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like task.update or task.assign by focusing on creation.
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?
The description explicitly requires a previewed-and-approved payload and specifies the prerequisite steps, giving clear when-to-use guidance. It could be improved by mentioning when not to use it (e.g., if no preview available), but the precondition is strong.
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:

[![qmswrapper-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/uvaresearch/qmswrapper-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/uvaresearch/qmswrapper-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![qmswrapper-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/uvaresearch/qmswrapper-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/uvaresearch/qmswrapper-mcp)

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/uvaresearch/qmswrapper-mcp'

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