asana_search_tasksSearch tasks across a workspace by keyword. Returns matching tasks with ID, name, completion status, and assignee. Requires workspace ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Search query text | |
| limit | No | Number of results to return (default 20, max 100) | |
| workspace | No | Workspace GID (auto-resolved if omitted) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tasks | Yes | List of matching tasks |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds that it returns specific fields and requires workspace ID, which is useful but not critical given the rich annotations.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Given the simple search operation, the description covers purpose, return fields, and key requirement. With annotations and output schema, it is reasonably complete. Missing details like pagination or error handling are acceptable.
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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds minor context (default limit, max) but has a slight inconsistency: description says 'Requires workspace ID' while schema marks workspace as optional. Since baseline is 3, this is adequate.
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 verb 'Search', resource 'tasks', and scope 'across a workspace'. It specifies the return fields (ID, name, completion status, assignee). This distinguishes it from siblings like asana_list_tasks (which likely lists all tasks) and asana_get_task (single task).
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 states it uses keyword search and requires a workspace ID (though schema says optional). It does not explicitly exclude when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear for basic search vs. other task operations.
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.
The tool set mixes Asana project management tools with a large number of Pipeworx data retrieval tools. Within the Pipeworx subset, tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded have overlapping purposes, and multiple prediction market tools exist (e.g., polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges). This creates ambiguity and potential for misselection.
Tool names lack a consistent pattern. Some use 'asana_' prefix, others use descriptive phrases (e.g., 'compare_entities', 'generate_llms_txt'), and some are single verbs (e.g., 'forget', 'remember'). Mix of different conventions leads to unpredictability.
37 tools is high for a server named 'Asana', yet only 6 tools are Asana-specific. The majority are Pipeworx tools unrelated to Asana. This overloading makes the server feel bloated and off-purpose.
For Asana functionality, the set is incomplete: missing update/delete task, project management features, etc. The Pipeworx tools are extensive but irrelevant to the server's stated purpose, leaving the Asana workflow with notable gaps.