List your recent work sessions. Optionally filter by project name or ID. Shows task type, status, and event count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results (default 10) | |
| project_id | No | Filter by project ID (optional) | |
| project_name | No | Filter by project name (optional, alternative to project_id) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns (task type, status, event count) and that it lists 'recent' sessions, but it does not explicitly confirm it is read-only, explain the recency window, or disclose any side effects. The word 'list' implies safety, but the description lacks explicit reassurance.
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 concise and front-loaded: 'List your recent work sessions.' It uses three short sentences, each contributing meaningful information (action, optional filters, output fields) with no redundancy or fluff.
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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, filtering options, and a preview of returned fields. It lacks explicit mention of output format/pagination, but given the simplicity of the tool and the parameter descriptions in the schema, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it effectively.
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% and each parameter already has a description (limit, project_id, project_name). The tool description adds little beyond referencing the filter capability, which is already in the schema. It does not provide additional context about parameter interactions or defaults beyond what the schema states.
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 a specific action ('List your recent work sessions') with a clear resource ('sessions') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_session_details (singular) and start_session/end_session by the verb 'list'.
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 listing sessions and optionally filtering by project name or ID, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives (e.g., use get_session_details for a single session). The guidance is minimal and inferred from the verb and filters.
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.
