Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
total-agent-memory

total-agent-memory

by vbcherepanov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

task_phases_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the chronological sequence of phases tied to a specific task ID, enabling progress tracking and workflow review.

Instructions

v8.0: list all phases of a task in chronological order.

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_id": "<task_id>"
    },
    "name": "task_phases_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the chronological ordering behavior, which is useful, but doesn't disclose other details like whether all phases (including completed) are returned or if there's any pagination.

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?

One concise sentence with the key action and ordering up front. The 'v8.0:' version prefix adds minor noise but doesn't significantly detract.

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 simple read-only list operation with one parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly adequate. However, it omits any return format details (e.g., phase objects with status/timestamps) and provides no usage context.

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%, and the description does not explicitly explain the task_id parameter. It only implies it through 'of a task', but doesn't state it's required or specify format. The parameter is simple and self-explanatory, but the description fails to formally map it.

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 ('list'), resource ('phases of a task'), and adds ordering ('chronological'). This clearly distinguishes it from task creation/transition tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with a sibling.

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. It doesn't mention it's a read-only inspection query or that it should be used to track task progress rather than modify phases.

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