Tombstone a worker record (is_active=false). REFUSES if the worker has any task/subtask completions or payments — merge those into the real worker with tascan_merge_workers instead. Never hard-deletes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| worker_id | Yes | Worker ID to delete |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Even though annotations already mark the tool as destructive, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it is a soft delete (is_active=false), it refuses under certain conditions, and it never hard-deletes. This goes well beyond the annotations and clarifies exactly what 'delete' means.
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 compact and front-loaded, with the core operation stated first, followed by the key exception and the correct alternative. Every sentence adds value; there is no filler.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the safety guardrail, the alternative path, and the soft-delete behavior. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke it.
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 the worker_id parameter is already described as 'Worker ID to delete.' The description reinforces that the target is a worker record but does not add significant new semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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 states a specific action ('Tombstone a worker record'), identifies the exact resource, and clarifies the operation sets is_active=false. It also distinguishes itself from tascan_merge_workers, so an agent can tell which tool handles which scenario.
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?
It explicitly states the condition under which the tool refuses ('any task/subtask completions or payments') and names the alternative tool to use in that case (tascan_merge_workers). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
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.
