reorder_root_tasksCompact and re-normalize the order values of the top-level (root) tasks of a project. Pass project_id. A maintenance operation that fixes ordering gaps; it does not accept an explicit ordering list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds that it 'fixes ordering gaps' and is a 'maintenance operation', but does not detail side effects or prerequisites, such as whether the project must exist or what happens to dependent tasks. Given the annotations, the added context is minimal but present.
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 only three sentences and front-loads the main action, but the unnecessary and contradictory 'Pass `project_id`' directive detracts from its 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 description omits how to provide the required project_id despite referencing it, and with no output schema it does not clarify return values or side effects. The tool cannot be correctly invoked based on the provided information.
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 input schema defines zero parameters, yet the description instructs the agent to 'Pass `project_id`', which is not defined in the schema. This contradiction makes it unclear how to supply the required project identifier and is a critical flaw.
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 ('Compact and re-normalize'), target ('order values of top-level (root) tasks'), and scope ('of a project'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling `reorder_children_tasks` which targets child 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?
It explains this is a maintenance operation for fixing ordering gaps and explicitly excludes explicit ordering lists, giving the agent a clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use. It does not name alternative tools, but the sibling naming convention provides enough context.
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.