Skip to main content
Glama
devirokkam

Task MCP Server

by devirokkam
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Task MCP Server

A simple task management Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for Claude Desktop.

Features

  • ✅ Add new tasks

  • 📋 List all tasks

  • ✓ Mark tasks as completed

  • 🗑️ Delete tasks

Related MCP server: Task MCP Server

Installation

From GitHub (Recommended)

The easiest way to use this server is directly from GitHub using uvx:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "task-manager": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": [
        "task-mcp-server",
        "--from",
        "git+https://github.com/YOUR_USERNAME/task-mcp-server.git"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Local Installation

# Clone the repository
git clone https://github.com/YOUR_USERNAME/task-mcp-server.git
cd task-mcp-server

# Install with uv
uv pip install -e .

# Run the server
task-mcp-server

Usage with Claude Desktop

  1. Open Claude Desktop configuration file:

    • macOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

    • Windows: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json

  2. Add the server configuration:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "task-manager": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": [
        "task-mcp-server",
        "--from",
        "git+https://github.com/YOUR_USERNAME/task-mcp-server.git"
      ]
    }
  }
}

  1. Restart Claude Desktop

  2. Look for the 🔌 icon to confirm the server is connected

Available Tools

  • add_task: Add a new task with title and optional description

  • list_tasks: Display all tasks with their status

  • complete_task: Mark a task as completed

  • delete_task: Remove a task from the list

Example Usage

In Claude Desktop, try:

  • "Add a task to buy groceries"

  • "List all my tasks"

  • "Mark task 1 as completed"

  • "Delete task 2"

Development

# Install dependencies
uv pip install -e .

# Run locally
uv run task-mcp-server

# Test with MCP inspector
npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector uv run task-mcp-server

License

MIT

Available Tools

4 tools
add_taskC

Add a new task to the task list

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesTask title
descriptionNoTask description (optional)

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full behavioral burden. It fails to disclose: return value (e.g., task ID), idempotency behavior, duplicate handling, or side effects. 'Add' implies mutation but lacks critical execution context.

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?

Single sentence with no redundancy, appropriately brief. However, brevity crosses into under-specification given lack of annotations and mutation behavior that requires disclosure.

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?

Insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotations and no output schema. Missing behavioral contract, sibling differentiation, and execution prerequisites that an agent needs to select and invoke 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 has 100% description coverage ('Task title', 'Task description'), meeting baseline expectations. Description text adds no parameter semantics beyond schema, but none are needed given complete schema documentation.

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?

Clear verb ('Add') + resource ('task') + scope ('to the task list'). States what the tool does without ambiguity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling 'complete_task' or clarify that this creates vs. modifies existing tasks.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'complete_task' or 'delete_task'. No prerequisites, constraints, or conditions mentioned.

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

complete_taskC

Mark a task as completed

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYesID of the task to complete

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a mutation (marking complete) but fails to specify idempotency, error conditions (e.g., invalid task_id), side effects, or whether the operation is reversible (can it be un-completed?).

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?

Extremely brief at four words with zero redundancy. While appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool, the extreme brevity contributes to the lack of behavioral and contextual detail found in other dimensions.

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 CRUD operation with full schema coverage and no output schema, but minimal given the absence of annotations. Lacks disclosure of error behaviors, return values, or side effects that would help an agent handle edge cases.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description 'Mark a task as completed' implies the 'task_id' parameter refers to an existing task, but adds no syntax guidance, format constraints, or semantic context beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Mark') and resource ('task') with clear state change ('as completed'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., distinguishing an update operation from 'delete_task' or confirming behavior differs from 'add_task').

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites for invocation (e.g., task must exist), or what happens if the task is already completed. Contains no 'when-not' or alternative recommendations.

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

delete_taskC

Delete a task

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYesID of the task to delete

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It states the tool is destructive ('Delete') but omits critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent, recoverable, affects related data, or error cases (e.g., if task_id doesn't exist).

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 (3 words), but this manifests as under-specification rather than efficiency. Given the tool's destructive nature and sibling ambiguity, the sentence fails to earn its place by omitting necessary context.

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?

For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical safety context (permanence, recovery options) and fails to clarify the distinction from 'complete_task', which is essential for correct agent selection.

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 adequately documents the single 'task_id' parameter. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Delete a task' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration (tautology). While the verb and resource are clear, it fails to distinguish from sibling 'complete_task', which may also remove a task from active work but with different semantics.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use delete_task versus complete_task (permanent deletion vs. status change) or other alternatives. No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned.

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

list_tasksC

List all tasks

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate read-only safety, pagination behavior, return format, or scope constraints. The description provides zero behavioral context beyond the tool name.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

While brief (3 words), the description suffers from under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single sentence fails to earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name, and lacks front-loaded critical context about behavioral safety.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and mutation-capable siblings, the description inadequately prepares the agent for tool selection. It omits critical context that this is a safe read operation and lacks any scope clarification necessary for an unparameterized list operation.

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?

Input schema contains zero parameters. Per rubric guidelines, 0 params establishes a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to describe.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'List all tasks' restates the tool name (tautology). While it confirms the action and resource, it fails to distinguish from siblings (add_task, complete_task, delete_task) or clarify scope (e.g., user-specific vs global tasks).

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 provided on when to use this tool versus mutation alternatives (add_task, complete_task, delete_task). No mention of prerequisites or filtering limitations despite the 'all' scope implication.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 4 tool updatesv0.1.0
    • First observedadd_task
    • First observedcomplete_task
    • First observeddelete_task
    • First observedlist_tasks
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: add_task creates new tasks, complete_task updates task status, delete_task removes tasks, and list_tasks retrieves tasks. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool for any operation.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (add_task, complete_task, delete_task, list_tasks), using snake_case throughout. This predictability enhances usability and reduces confusion.

Tool Count5/5

With 4 tools, this server is well-scoped for a task management domain, covering essential CRUD operations (create, read, update, delete) without unnecessary bloat. Each tool earns its place in the set.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface provides complete CRUD/lifecycle coverage for task management: add_task (create), list_tasks (read), complete_task (update), and delete_task (delete). There are no obvious gaps, allowing agents to handle all core workflows without dead ends.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • Notion MCP

    Badhansen
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A Model Context Protocol server that integrates with Notion's API to manage personal todo lists, allowing users to view, add, and update tasks directly from Claude.
    31
    MIT

  • Tasks MCP Server

    maxouverzou
    F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A task management MCP server that provides tools to create, list, complete, and delete tasks using pluggable storage backends. It enables users to interact with their task lists through natural language using MCP-compatible clients like Claude Desktop.
    -

  • Todo MCP

    peterfabakker
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A persistent todo list server that enables AI assistants to manage tasks across different platforms using the Model Context Protocol. It provides tools for creating, listing, updating, and deleting todos with support for priorities, tags, and due dates.
    MIT

Latest Blog Posts

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/devirokkam/MCP_Github_Deployment'

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