poker.game.tasks.addAdds tasks to a poker game by hand — for work that lives outside an issue tracker, or when no tracker is connected. To pull tasks from Jira or Linear use poker.game.tasks.import instead. Requires mcp:write scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tasks | Yes | Tasks to add: a list of objects with name and optional description. | |
| game_id | Yes | The ID of the poker game. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are empty, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the required 'mcp:write scope' permission and clarifies the manual nature ('by hand') versus import. It does not describe return behavior or error handling, but the scope requirement and manual approach are meaningful behavioral 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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and usage context, the second names the alternative and required scope. Well-structured and front-loaded.
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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers purpose, usage context, alternative, and permission requirement. It lacks return format details but that is not critical here. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%: both game_id and tasks have descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, and with full coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.
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 'Adds tasks to a poker game by hand' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool poker.game.tasks.import by explicitly mentioning the alternative for pulling tasks from Jira or Linear.
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 explicit use case: 'for work that lives outside an issue tracker, or when no tracker is connected.' It also gives a direct alternative: 'To pull tasks from Jira or Linear use poker.game.tasks.import instead.' This fully covers when to use versus alternatives.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with overlapping tools like retro.actions.list and retro.board.actions.list explicitly differentiated in descriptions. The naming hierarchy (domain.resource.subresource.verb) helps keep properties separate.
Tools follow a consistent dot-separated resource-verb pattern, with singular/plural usage following standard collection vs. single-resource conventions (e.g., games.list vs. game.get). All verbs are lowercase with underscores, making the surface predictable.
With 29 tools spanning two distinct domains (poker planning and retrospectives), the surface feels heavy and may overwhelm users. The calibration suggests 25+ is excessive, and splitting into separate servers could improve focus.
The tool set covers most management tasks for both poker games and retrospectives, but lacks a core operation for adding messages/cards to a board, which is essential for a retro tool. Also, no board creation or deletion tools, leaving some lifecycle operations incomplete.