move_to_project_tasksMove a task to a different project (and company). Pass project_id and company_id; the target project must belong to that company and the user must be a member. The task cannot already be in the target project. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| kwargs | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While annotations already indicate this is not read-only, the description adds non-obvious behavioral constraints: the task cannot already be in the target project, and the user must be a member. It also provides a practical note about app_url, which helps the agent guide the end user. No contradiction with annotations.
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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful detail. It is concise and well-structured without unnecessary fluff.
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 mutating tool with no output schema and only basic annotations, the description covers the essential preconditions and even provides an actionable tip about app_url. It lacks explicit return-value information, but the core usage is sufficiently well-specified for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 description explains the meaning of project_id and company_id, including their relationship and membership requirements, which goes beyond simple parameter names. However, it omits any handling of the `pk` parameter (task id), and since schema description coverage is listed as 0%, the description does not fully compensate for all parameters.
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 action 'Move a task to a different project (and company)', using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_to_sprint_tasks or move_relate_to_tasks.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool by stating required conditions ('target project must belong to that company', 'user must be a member', 'task cannot already be in the target project'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context strongly implies it is for cross-project moves.
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.