mcp-vibekanban

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v3.1.7
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action and resource. Task tools (create, read, update, delete) are clearly separated from session tools (start, list, get, send, cancel, queue status) and context retrieval. No overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_task, list_sessions, get_queue_status). The verbs are descriptive and the pattern is uniform across the entire set.
Tool Count5/5
With 12 tools, the server covers task management (CRUD), session lifecycle, queue operations, and workspace context. The count feels well-balanced for the domain without being excessive or sparse.
Completeness4/5
Task CRUD is fully covered. Sessions have start, list, get, and message sending. Lacks an explicit end/close session tool, but the current set supports core workflows. Minor gap, but agents can manage via cancel_queue or context.
Average 3.8/5 across 12 of 12 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states the tool checks queue status, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose what happens when no message is queued, whether the session must exist, or any rate limits. Behavioral details are minimal beyond the basic purpose.
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 concise: a one-line purpose, a use case, and an example. It is front-loaded with the core action. The use of HTML-like tags is non-standard but acceptable. No unnecessary information is present.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a purpose and use case but lacks details on return value (e.g., boolean, status object) or error handling. It is adequate but leaves gaps that could be filled 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 for the single parameter is 100% (description: 'Session UUID'), and the description provides an example with a session ID. The schema already fully defines the parameter, so the description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.
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 'Check if a message is queued for a session,' which is a clear verb-resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like cancel_queue or create_task, though the specific functionality (checking queue status) is distinct enough.
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 use case 'See pending message when executor is busy' gives a clear context for use, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. The usage is implied but not elaborated.
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?
With no annotations, description only states cancellation action, failing to disclose side effects, error handling, prerequisites (message must be queued), or success/failure behavior.
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?
Short and front-loaded with purpose, accompanied by usecase and example. Efficient but could be better structured with explicit guidance sections.
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?
Adequate for a simple tool with one parameter, but lacks explanation of return value (no output schema) and edge cases (e.g., message already canceled).
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?
Single parameter session_id is fully described in schema; description adds example usage but no additional semantic meaning or constraints beyond 'Session UUID'.
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 the tool cancels a queued message, with a usecase and example. It distinguishes from siblings like send_message and get_queue_status by specifying removal of pending messages.
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?
Implicit usage from usecase and example, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., when message might already be sent) or exclusion criteria.
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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Creates workspace + session,' implying mutation, but does not mention permissions, rate limits, or details about the coding agent launch (e.g., asynchronous behavior).
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?
Description is structured with usecase, parameters, and example sections. It front-loads the main purpose, but the usecase and parameters tags are somewhat redundant with the plain text. Overall efficient.
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?
Covers basic purpose and parameters, but lacks information about return values, side effects, or prerequisites (e.g., task must exist). Given no output schema and no annotations, more context would be helpful for an agent to use correctly.
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 description adds little beyond the schema. It provides an example call and restates parameter lists and defaults, but the schema already includes descriptions and defaults. The example is the main added 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?
Clear verb ('Start') and resource ('coding session for a task'). The usecase tag further clarifies it launches a coding agent and creates workspace+session, distinguishing it from siblings like create_task (creates task only) or get_session (retrieves existing).
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 description implies it's for launching a coding session, it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., task must exist) or when to use list_sessions or get_session instead.
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 carries the full burden. It describes what parameters do but does not disclose side effects, atomicity, permissions, or return value. An agent cannot know if the update is partial or full, or if the task must exist.
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 structured with usecase, parameters, and example sections. It is fairly concise, though the parameters section is redundant with the schema. Front-loaded purpose sentence is clear.
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 update tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers use case, parameters, and example. However, it lacks details on return value, error behavior, and prerequisites (e.g., task existence). Adequate but with 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds an example and repeats parameter details, offering marginal value. 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 states 'Update task properties' and specifies use case 'Change task title, description, or status.' It clearly identifies the verb (update) and resource (task), distinguishing it from siblings like create_task and delete_task.
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 includes a usecase tag and an example, implying when to use it, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., for full replacement). Guidance is implied but lacks exclusion criteria.
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 carries full responsibility. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, permissions, rate limits, or side effects beyond stating it retrieves details.
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 very concise with a single sentence, a use case tag, and an example. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the use case could potentially be integrated more seamlessly.
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 the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It explains what the tool does but does not describe the return value or handle edge cases, which could be useful for an agent.
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 for the single parameter 'task_id', which is already described as 'Task UUID'. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema and the example usage.
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 'Get task details' and the use case specifies viewing full task information including description. The example of usage distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tasks, which lists multiple 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?
The use case provides clear context for when to use the tool, indicating it is for viewing full task details. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, though sibling tools imply differentiation.
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 fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get session details' and the use case. It does not mention permissions, side effects, or rate limits, leaving the agent with 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with one sentence for purpose, one for use case, and one example. Every element is necessary and front-loaded, making it easy to scan.
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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides the essential purpose and a use case. However, it does not specify what details are returned (e.g., state, executor), leaving some ambiguity 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter that already has a description. The description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema; the example is helpful for usage but not for parameter 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Get session details') and the use case clarifies the purpose. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_sessions and start_workspace_session.
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 <usecase> tag provides a clear use case: 'Check which executor is assigned and session state.' While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, it gives strong guidance on when to invoke this tool.
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 does not indicate read-only nature, pagination, ordering, or any side effects, leaving the agent uninformed about underlying behavior.
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 well-structured with distinct sections (usecase, parameters, example) and is concise. A slightly shorter version could work, but no redundancy.
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 no output schema, the description covers essential usage: listing with optional filters and limit. Missing sorting or pagination details, but adequate for basic 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minimal extra context via the usecase and example, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond 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 clearly states 'List tasks in the project' with a specific verb and resource. The usecase further clarifies filtering capability. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like create_task and get_task.
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 usecase guidance ('View all tasks or filter by status') but does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like get_task for a single item.
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 burden. It adds that deletion is permanent and irreversible, which is valuable, but lacks details on permissions, cascading effects, or return values.
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 no superfluous content, effectively using usecase and example tags to structure 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?
Given the simple one-parameter input and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the action and its permanence, though missing details on success/failure responses.
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%; the description does not add meaning beyond the schema's 'Task UUID' for task_id, providing only an example usage.
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 'Delete a task permanently,' identifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_task' by specifying permanent deletion.
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 includes 'Cannot be undone,' indicating when not to use, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or context other than the usecase tag.
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 explains the purpose but lacks details on behavior like pagination, error handling, or rate limits, which would be helpful for a complete picture.
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?
Description is concise with a clear opening sentence, a useful use case tag, and an example. No unnecessary words.
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 simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is largely sufficient but could briefly mention the return format to be fully self-contained.
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%, and the parameter description is clear. The description adds an example but does not further enrich semantics beyond 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?
Description clearly states 'List sessions in a workspace' with specific verb and resource, distinguishing from sibling tools like get_session and start_workspace_session.
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?
Description implies when to use (see all executor sessions) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, leaving minor room for ambiguity.
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 burden. It mentions @tag expansion but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or other behavioral traits beyond the basic create action.
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 concise and well-structured with usecase, parameters, and an example. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded.
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 create tool with two parameters, the description covers the essentials. It lacks output details, but no output schema is present. The example aids understanding.
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?
Both parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds the context that description supports @tag expansion, providing semantic value beyond 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 clearly states 'Create a new task,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_task, update_task, and list_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?
The description includes a usecase ('Add a task to the project') and an example, which implies typical usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives.
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 present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool auto-detects executor and auto-queues if busy. However, it lacks details on failure modes, required permissions, or side effects, which would justify a higher score.
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 concise and well-structured with XML tags separating use case, parameters, and example. Every sentence is informative without redundancy. The front-loaded purpose and clear organization earn top marks.
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 moderate complexity and lack of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters with defaults, and an example. It could mention possible return values or error handling, but it is largely sufficient for the 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that executor is 'Auto-detected from session' and auto_queue means 'Queue if busy,' beyond just repeating the schema. One parameter (variant) is not described in the text, slightly diminishing completeness.
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 explicitly states the verb (send) and resource (message to a coding agent session), making the purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cancel_queue or get_queue_status, which are different actions.
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 includes a <usecase> that says 'Send follow-up instructions to an active session,' providing context on when to use it. It also mentions auto-queuing behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternatives, which would earn a 5.
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; description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or read-only nature. For a simple getter, lack of detail is acceptable but not exemplary.
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?
Brief front-loaded sentence followed by structured XML tags (usecase, when_not_to_use, example). Efficient but slightly verbose with tags; still clear and well-organized.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, usage guidelines, and an example. Could mention return format but not essential for such a simple tool.
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?
Zero parameters, so description need not add parameter info. Schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no param details, but none are required; baseline 4 applies.
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 'Get current workspace context' and elaborates via <usecase> that it returns active project, task, and workspace info. Distinguishes from siblings by listing when not to use (list_tasks, get_task).
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 provides when to use (usecase) and when not to use with specific alternatives (list_tasks, get_task), helping agent decide contextually.
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:

[![mcp-better-vibe-kanban MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yigitkonur/mcp-better-vibe-kanban/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yigitkonur/mcp-better-vibe-kanban)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-better-vibe-kanban MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yigitkonur/mcp-better-vibe-kanban/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yigitkonur/mcp-better-vibe-kanban)

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/yigitkonur/mcp-better-vibe-kanban'

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