Apply a pre-built template to a task list, adding all template tasks
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list_id | Yes | Task list (event) ID | |
| template_slug | Yes | Template slug (e.g. "conference-load-in", "warehouse-receiving") |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds that it 'adds all template tasks', confirming an additive effect, but it does not disclose potential duplication on re-application or error behavior. Little is added beyond the 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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and clearly states the action and target. No unnecessary words or repetitions.
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 two-parameter mutation with annotations and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It clearly communicates the core functionality but could add context about whether existing tasks are preserved or if applying twice duplicates tasks. However, the non-destructive hint partially covers this.
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?
Both parameters are fully described in the schema (list_id and template_slug) with examples in the template_slug description. The tool description reinforces their role but does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.
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 action 'apply' with a specific resource 'pre-built template to a task list' and the outcome 'adding all template tasks'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tascan_add_tasks, which focus on adding tasks individually rather than through a template.
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 the tool is used when a template_slug is available, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., tascan_add_tasks) or mention any prerequisites like listing templates first. Usage is inferred but not directly guided.
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 map to a distinct resource+action pair, and the descriptions clearly separate entities like tasks, subtasks, workers, invoices, zones, assets, and reports. A few close pairs (get_report vs generate_report, dispatch_instruction vs dispatch_to_agent, analyze_issue vs auto_resolve) require careful reading, but the descriptions are detailed enough to disambiguate them.
The vast majority follow a tascan_verb_noun pattern with consistent create/get/list/update/delete verbs. Minor deviations like condition_history, server_info, zone_compliance, and one-word find slightly break the otherwise predictable pattern.
At 69 tools, this is far beyond what an agent can efficiently consider, and it bundles several distinct domains into one MCP surface. Even if each tool is individually useful, the combined set is an extreme mismatch for a coherent tool interface.
The surface covers nearly the full lifecycle for projects, events, tasks, subtasks, workers, reports, invoices, zones, assets, issues, and communications. Minor gaps exist (no explicit asset updates/decommissioning, no cancel_invite, no delete_zone), but the main workflows have no dead ends.
