Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Task Manager

Task Manager

by vshfrost
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

history

Read-only

View an audit log of task changes, including who made each change, when, and which fields changed; filter by task ID and limit results.

Instructions

Журнал змін задач: хто, коли і ЩО САМЕ змінив. Найновіші — зверху.

id — показати історію однієї задачі (порожньо = усі зміни підряд);
limit — скільки записів (за замовч. 20).

Позначки: `add` створено · `edit` змінено (видно було→стало по кожному полю) ·
`delete` видалено (зі знімком, бо відновити більше нізвідки) ·
⚠️ `стороння правка` — файл змінили повз сервіс (Obsidian/редактор), полів не знаємо.
Підпис `юзер@клієнт`: хто зробив зміну і звідки (web | mac | claude | chatgpt | phone | local).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "history"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
limitNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With readOnlyHint already covering safety, the description still adds substantial behavior: newest-first ordering, the meaning of add/edit/delete markers, the fact that deletes carry a snapshot because they cannot otherwise be restored, and the ⚠️ external-edit case where fields are unknown. The `юзер@клієнт` signature with its source enumeration (web | mac | claude | chatgpt | phone | local) further explains what each entry exposes.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose and ordering, then parameters, then a compact legend of output markers. Every line carries information an agent needs, especially since there is no output schema to explain the entries.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the important ground: what an entry contains, ordering, and the special external-edit case. It omits whether results are paginated beyond `limit` or what happens when `id` refers to a nonexistent task.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for both parameters: `id` empty means all changes in a row, and `limit` is the record count with a default of 20. It does not state the expected id format (e.g., task UUID), which is the one remaining ambiguity.

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 opening line states the resource and its content precisely: 'Журнал змін задач: хто, коли і ЩО САМЕ змінив,' plus ordering ('Найновіші — зверху'). It is immediately distinguishable from get_task or list_tasks, though it never names a sibling to sharpen that contrast.

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?

Usage is only implied by the parameter note 'id — показати історію однієї задачі (порожньо = усі зміни підряд).' There is no explicit statement of when to reach for history versus get_task, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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