Link a project to a team. Find both by name or ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team_id | No | Team ID (optional if team_name is provided) | |
| team_name | No | Team name (optional if team_id is provided) | |
| project_id | No | Project ID (optional if project_name is provided) | |
| project_name | No | Project name (optional if project_id is provided) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Find both by name or ID,' which hints at resolution behavior, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it mutates the project or team), permission requirements, idempotency, or error behavior if entities are not found. This is a significant transparency gap for a write operation.
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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and then adds a brief note about resolution, making it efficient and easily scannable.
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 is simple and the parameter schema is fully covered, but the description omits details about return values, error handling, and the exact effect of linking (e.g., whether it overwrites existing links). Given zero annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.
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 coverage is 100% (by context signals), and the description adds the contextual hint that both team and project can be found by name or ID, which aligns with the optional params. However, it does not go beyond the schema to clarify precedence or validation behavior, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 purpose: 'Link a project to a team.' The verb 'link' and the two resources specify the exact action. It also distinguishes from siblings like unlink_team_project and list_project_teams by the unique linking action.
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 associating an existing project with a team, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_project or create_project, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context is otherwise clear from the name and description.
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 have distinct resource+action pairs (e.g., create_task vs update_task vs delete_task), but the large number of list/get/search tools creates some potential confusion, especially between get_context, search_entities, and find_documents. Descriptions are detailed and help, but the volume makes navigation less clear.
The majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_, delete_, list_, update_, etc.), with clear prefixes like add/remove and link/unlink. Deviations like 'whoami', 'find_documents' vs 'search_entities', and 'setup_organization' prevent a perfect score.
62 tools is far beyond the typical MCP server scope and overwhelms agents with too many choices. Even if each tool is individually useful, the sheer count makes it difficult for an agent to efficiently select the right tool, increasing the likelihood of misselection.
The domain is well covered for projects, tasks, teams, sessions, and notifications, but there are notable gaps: no update_document, no get_task (only list/update/delete), no get_user, no reject_invite, and sprint management lacks update/delete operations. Core CRUD is present for many entities, but not all.
