Fuegt einem Tracker einen neuen Eintrag hinzu. "values" ist ein Objekt, dessen Schluessel die Feldnamen (label) ODER Feld-IDs sind. Ja/Nein-Felder (checkbox) akzeptieren true/false. Wenn du die Feldnamen nicht kennst, rufe zuerst get_tracker auf.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| values | Yes | Feldname/-ID => Wert | |
| tracker_id | Yes | ID des Trackers |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the 'values' object's flexibility (field names or IDs), checkbox handling with true/false, and the fallback to get_tracker. This goes beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't address error cases or response behavior.
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 appropriately concise, consisting of three short sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide necessary parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 tool has only two parameters with a nested object, and no output schema exists. The description covers the key aspects: how to structure values, how to handle checkboxes, and how to discover field names. However, it omits details about required fields or error handling, which slightly reduces completeness for a mutation tool.
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 schema only provides minimal descriptions ('Feldname/-ID => Wert' and 'ID des Trackers'), but the description enriches both parameters significantly. It explains that keys in 'values' can be either field labels or IDs and specifies that checkbox fields accept true/false, which is essential for correct usage.
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 tool's function: 'Fuegt einem Tracker einen neuen Eintrag hinzu' (adds a new entry to a tracker), using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_card, add_column, and add_field which target different entity types.
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 this tool, including the prerequisite that field names may need to be known and advises calling get_tracker if not: 'Wenn du die Feldnamen nicht kennst, rufe zuerst get_tracker auf.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a perfect score.
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 (board, column, card, tracker, field, entry) with no overlapping purposes. Even closely related operations like add_card vs add_entry operate on different entity types.
Tool names consistently follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_board, add_card, delete_entry, update_tracker). The mix of 'create' for top-level entities and 'add' for sub-entities is a minor deviation but still predictable.
24 tools is somewhat high but well-justified given the server covers two resource families (boards and trackers) with full lifecycle operations. Each tool has a clear role in the overall surface.
The tool set provides comprehensive CRUD coverage for boards, columns, cards, trackers, and entries. The main gap is the lack of an update_field tool, but this can be worked around by deleting and recreating fields.