increase_depth_tasksIndent a task so it becomes a child of another task (increases its depth) — e.g. turn a sibling into a sub-task. Pass new_parent_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 readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with a mutating operation. The description adds a note about app_url deep links and instructs to give them to the user, which is a useful behavioral hint. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as prerequisites, side effects, or error conditions, and the phantom parameter reference further clouds transparency.
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 concise, only two sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. The second sentence about app_url is slightly tangential but is a useful instruction for user interaction. However, the incorrect parameter reference detracts from the overall structural clarity.
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?
The tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain return values or side effects. It also fails to clarify how 'new_parent_id' should be supplied (since it is not in the schema), leaving the agent confused about the execution. The app_url instruction adds some context but does not address the core invocation requirements.
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 description coverage is 0% for the actual parameters. The description instructs to pass 'new_parent_id', which does not exist in the input schema (only 'pk' is required). This actively misleads the agent about the required inputs, and no explanation of the real parameter 'pk' is provided. The description fails to compensate for the schema's minimal documentation.
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 the verb 'Indent' and the resource 'task', and explicitly explains the result: 'becomes a child of another task (increases its depth)'. The example 'turn a sibling into a sub-task' provides a concrete scenario, and the sibling tool name 'decrease_depth_tasks' reinforces the distinction.
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 gives a concrete use case ('turn a sibling into a sub-task') and instructs to 'Pass new_parent_id', which suggests when and how to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, and the referenced parameter 'new_parent_id' is not present in the input schema, making the guidance misleading.
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.