decrease_depth_tasksOutdent a task to its parent's level (decreases its depth), optionally positioning it after a given sibling via after_task_id. Every task carries app_url, a ready-to-use deep link into the ProWoDo web app — give it to the user instead of describing where to click.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kwargs | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful behavioral context by mentioning the optional after_task_id positioning and the app_url deep link instruction for responding to users. However, it does not disclose potential side effects on child tasks or ordering, which would be relevant for an outdent operation.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then the optional behavior, and finally a practical user-facing instruction. Every word earns its place without unnecessary detail.
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?
For a simple tool with one required parameter, the description covers the core action and adds a user-response guideline. However, it references after_task_id which is not in the schema, creating a completeness gap. It also does not mention whether the outdent affects subtasks or the resulting order, leaving some behavioral ambiguity. The absence of an output schema makes the app_url instruction valuable, but the schema mismatch detracts from overall completeness.
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?
The schema only documents 'pk' (the task id), and the description does not explain it beyond what the schema already provides. More problematically, the description introduces 'after_task_id' as an optional parameter, but this parameter is absent from the input schema. This mismatch creates ambiguity: an agent would expect to provide after_task_id but cannot find it in the schema. The description fails to compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.
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 uses the specific verb 'Outdent' and clearly states the resource ('a task') and the effect ('decreases its depth'). It distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'increase_depth_tasks' (indent), and the optional positioning after a sibling adds clarity about its behavior.
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 context is clear: this tool is for outdenting tasks to reduce their depth. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools like increase_depth_tasks, move_up_tasks, and reorder_* make the intended usage evident from context. There is no explicit 'when not to use' guidance, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
Most tools are clearly scoped to a specific resource and action, but a few near-overlapping pairs (e.g., list_attachments vs list_taskattachments, create_tasktags vs add_tag_tasks) could cause misselection without close reading. Descriptions are detailed enough to resolve most ambiguity.
The dominant verb_noun CRUD pattern (create_, list_, retrieve_, update_, partial_update_, destroy_) is consistent and predictable. However, non-standard pluralizations (companys, resumeentrys, taskdependencys) and a handful of irregular names (task_assign_user, move_relate_to_tasks) introduce minor inconsistencies.
With 83 tools, this server is far beyond a well-scoped MCP surface, even for a feature-complete project management suite. The sheer volume will overwhelm agents and make selection inefficient, clearly falling into the extreme-mismatch range.
The toolset provides thorough lifecycle coverage across companies, projects, tasks, sprints, attachments, comments, dependencies, tags, reminders, resume entries, tickets, and users. Missing operations like company deletion or task-attachment creation appear intentional and are worked around via existing tools.