move_down_tasksMove a task one position down among its siblings (same parent), swapping order with the task below it. No request body needed. 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 it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds the behavioral detail of swapping order with the task below it, which is beyond the annotations. The note about no request body is useful though slightly confusing relative to the schema, and the app_url tip adds response-handling context.
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 brief and front-loaded with the core action. The extra sentence about no request body and the app_url tip are useful and concise, with no redundant or filler content.
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 reorder operation with annotations covering the mutation profile, the description explains the behavior and offers a response-handling tip. However, it does not mention edge cases like behavior when the task is already the last sibling, or explicitly link to sibling alternatives, leaving a small but notable gap.
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%, so the description needs to compensate. It mentions 'a task' but does not explicitly explain the 'pk' parameter or how to identify the task. The schema itself only says 'The id of the task,' and the description adds little beyond the obvious target, so it only partially compensates.
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 specific action: moving a task one position down among siblings (same parent) and swapping with the task below. This unambiguously distinguishes it from move_up_tasks, reorder_children_tasks, and other sibling reorder tools.
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?
Provides clear context that the operation targets a task within its sibling group, implying a single-step downward move. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scoping to siblings provides sufficient situational guidance.
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.