Zeigt einen einzelnen Tracker mit allen Feldern (id, label, typ, optionen, pflicht). Hilfreich, um vor add_entry die genauen Feldnamen zu kennen.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tracker_id | Yes | ID des Trackers |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey safety. The verb 'Zeigt' and the use case ('vor add_entry') imply a read-only lookup, and the field list gives return content. However, it doesn't explicitly state 'no side effects' or error conditions, leaving some gaps.
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 short sentences, first defines the action, second provides context. No 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?
For a simple 1-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description covers the result (all fields) and an actionable use case, making it fully sufficient.
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 single parameter tracker_id is fully documented in the schema ('ID des Trackers'), and the description doesn't add further parameter detail, meeting the baseline.
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 uses 'Zeigt' (shows) with 'einen einzelnen Tracker' (a single tracker), clearly distinguishing it from list_trackers. It also enumerates the returned fields (id, label, typ, optionen, pflicht), giving precise scope.
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 second sentence explicitly recommends using this tool 'vor add_entry' (before add_entry) to learn exact field names, providing a clear use case. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but gives 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.
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.