retrieve_taskdependenciesRetrieve a single task dependency of a project by id, including its predecessor, successor, dependency_type and lag_days. Each dependency carries app_url, a deep link to the drawer of the successor (the blocked task), where the dependency is managed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| kwargs | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds the detail about the deep link URL (app_url), which is useful but not critical. No contradiction found.
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?
Description is two sentences with minimal filler. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds valuable context about the deep link. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though the second sentence could be merged for tighter structure.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, good annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned (predecessor, successor, dependency_type, lag_days) and highlights the app_url feature. It could mention pagination or error scenarios, but these are less critical for a single retrieve operation.
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% because parameters only have brief descriptions (e.g., 'company_id' and 'pk'), but the required fields are fairly self-explanatory. However, the description does not elaborate on the meaning of 'lag_days' or 'dependency_type', which could be ambiguous for an AI. Since there are only 2 parameters with clear roles, a score of 3 is fair, but the description could have added more value.
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?
Clear verb and resource ('retrieve a single task dependency'), specific identifier, and lists exact fields included. It stands out from siblings like retrieve_taskcomments and retrieve_tasks because it uniquely mentions dependency-specific fields and the successor deep link.
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 implies usage for fetching a specific dependency by its ID, but does not explicitly contrast with list_taskdependencies or mention when not to use it. However, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the correct scenario.
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.