Add a finish-to-start dependency between two tasks in the same project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lagDays | No | Optional lag in days after predecessor finishes | |
| successorId | Yes | Task that can start after predecessor finishes | |
| predecessorId | Yes | Task that must finish first |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It mentions the constraint 'in the same project' and specifies the dependency type, but does not disclose potential side effects such as duplicate handling, validation of task existence, or impact on scheduling. This is adequate but leaves significant behavioral unknowns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and constraints. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough for its purpose. It explains the action and the key project-scoping constraint. However, it could mention what happens if the tasks are not in the same project or if the dependency already exists, but this is not critical for a basic add operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the notion of 'finish-to-start' which aligns with the schema's parameter descriptions, but it does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already states for predecessorId and successorId.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Add a finish-to-start dependency') and the target resource ('between two tasks in the same project'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_task or update_task by focusing on task relationships, not task creation or editing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need to link two tasks in a finish-to-start relationship. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context of sibling tools makes the use case obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource-action pair, such as create_task vs update_task vs set_task_progress. Even the two task-modifying tools have clearly separated concerns: one updates arbitrary fields, the other specifically updates progress with auto-derived status.
All tool names follow the verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_, list_, delete_, get_, add_, set_, update_). The only compound verb, reschedule_and_propagate, still fits the pattern and reads predictably.
15 tools is within the well-scoped 3-15 range, and each tool covers a meaningful operation for a project management domain. No redundant or trivial tools are present.
Tasks have full CRUD plus progress and dependency management, but milestones lack update/delete operations, and dependencies only support addition (no removal). These are notable gaps that may require workarounds in some workflows.
