Skip to main content
Glama

Microsoft Todo

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Get Task

get_task
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the full details of a single Microsoft To Do task by its list ID and task ID, including title, status, importance, full body/notes, due date, reminder time, created/completed times, and any checklist (sub-task) items. Use after list_tasks or find_due_tasks to read a to-do item in full.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
list_idYesThe ID of the Microsoft To Do task list containing the task.
task_idYesThe ID of the task to retrieve (from a list or find result).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the specific data returned (title, status, body, dates, checklist items), which is especially useful given there is no output schema.

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, both purposeful: the first defines the operation and its return payload, the second supplies workflow context. There is no fluff or repetition of schema information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only single-item retrieval tool with strong annotations, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when in the workflow to call it. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by enumerating the expected fields.

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% and both parameters have clear descriptions. The tool description restates that identification is by list ID and task ID but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('a single Microsoft To Do task'), and the identifying inputs (list ID and task ID). It also enumerates the returned fields, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from list-oriented siblings.

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 gives explicit workflow guidance: 'Use after list_tasks or find_due_tasks to read a to-do item in full.' This clearly indicates the intended context. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name direct alternatives, but the sequencing is informative enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Microsoft Todo toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The set is dominated by overlapping Pipeworx and prediction-market tools, with ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly described as currently identical, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and discover_tools serving heavily overlapping lookup purposes. The four Microsoft To Do tools are buried among 31 unrelated tools, making it very hard for an agent to select the right tool for the server's apparent domain.

Naming Consistency2/5

Most names are snake_case, but the naming conventions are otherwise mixed: there are verb_noun tools like list_tasks and get_task, bare verbs like remember/forget/recall, prefixed families like polymarket_*, and noun-phrase names like entity_profile, recent_changes, and pipeworx_trending. The lack of a consistent pattern across the set, especially relative to the Microsoft To Do server name, makes naming unpredictable.

Tool Count1/5

35 tools is already heavy, but the bigger problem is that only 4 of them are for Microsoft To Do, the server's stated name and purpose. The remaining 31 tools belong to unrelated Pipeworx data, prediction-market, and memory-management domains, which is an extreme scope mismatch.

Completeness1/5

For a Microsoft To Do server, the surface is severely incomplete: list_task_lists, list_tasks, get_task, and find_due_tasks cover reading and browsing only, with no create, update, complete, or delete operations. Even the broader Pipeworx functionality is scattered and redundant rather than forming a coherent domain surface.

Resources