Cross-entity search: find projects, task lists, tasks, workers, or condition assets by name in one call — with ids and parent context to disambiguate. Use this instead of walking projects→lists→tasks or guessing ids from display names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Optional: restrict to one entity type | |
| query | Yes | Search text (min 2 chars, case-insensitive substring) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool returns 'ids and parent context to disambiguate,' which is useful but does not detail pagination, result limits, or exact output format. Given the annotations cover the core behavioral traits, a 3 is appropriate.
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. The second sentence provides immediate usage guidance. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.
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 description covers the tool's purpose, entity types, and usage context. It hints at the return format ('ids and parent context') but without an output schema, a more explicit description of the result structure would improve completeness. Still, for a search tool with 2 parameters and 5 entity types, it is largely adequate.
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%—both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds 'by name' which aligns with the schema's 'case-insensitive substring' but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is correct.
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 uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('projects, task lists, tasks, workers, or condition assets'), lists all entity types, and explicitly contrasts with the alternative of walking the hierarchy. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling list and get tools.
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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'instead of walking projects→lists→tasks or guessing ids from display names.' It implies the alternative (sequential browsing or ID guessing) but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, such as when IDs are already known. Still, it offers clear 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.
