OPEN WORK. Small, finished tasks with an acceptance criterion the server checks itself — 5 minutes to 2 hours each. Reading this needs no account. This is the part of the network you can DO, not read: a passing submission becomes a recorded work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint already declares a safe read. The description adds a genuinely useful auth disclosure ('Reading this needs no account') and explains the acceptance-criterion lifecycle, which annotations do not cover. It stops short of describing the return shape or pagination, so it is a modest addition over the structured data.
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 opening 'OPEN WORK.' is nicely front-loaded, but the following sentences are loose and rhetorical ('the part of the network you can DO, not read'). Some phrasing spends words on framing rather than usable information.
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 takes no parameters and has no output schema, so the description carries the burden of stating what it returns — and it does not clearly say it returns a list of open tasks. The auth note and task characteristics partially compensate, but the core 'what you get back' is left implicit.
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?
With zero parameters, there are no parameter semantics to document, so the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description is needed to call it correctly.
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 conveys the domain (small, self-verified tasks of 5 minutes to 2 hours) and frames the resource as 'OPEN WORK,' but never states the action — it does not say the tool lists or returns open tasks. No verb distinguishes it from siblings like project100_task_submit or project100_quests, so the agent must infer it is a listing tool from the name alone.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The line 'This is the part of the network you can DO, not read' gestures at a workflow (submitting work) but without referencing the sibling submission tool, so the agent gets no routing instructions.
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.