move_up_tasksMove a task one position up among its siblings (same parent), swapping order with the task above 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 this is a mutating (readOnly=false), non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the swap ordering, states no request body is needed, and instructs to return the app_url deep link to the user instead of describing UI clicks. This exceeds the baseline set by annotations alone.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause earns its place. The app_url instruction is a concrete actionable directive rather than 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?
For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers the essential behavior, scope (siblings), input requirement (no body), and user-facing output handling (app_url). It does not mention edge cases like what happens if the task is already first, but the core information is sufficient for correct invocations.
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%, and the description does not mention the 'pk' parameter or the 'kwargs' wrapper at all. The tool name implies a task id, but the description adds no semantic detail about how to identify the task. The schema's own description for pk is minimal ('The id of the task'), so the description fails to compensate for the low 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 states a specific verb+resource+behavior: 'Move a task one position up among its siblings (same parent), swapping order with the task above it.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like move_down_tasks and reorder_children_tasks by specifying the exact scope and granularity.
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: it explains the operation affects siblings under the same parent and requires no request body. It also gives a usage directive for the app_url deep link. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops 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.