List marketplace invites you have sent and their status (pending / accepted / declined / expired / failed). Accepted invites include the worker's name and phone — that is the consent boundary; pending and declined never do.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: accepted invites include the worker's name and phone, forming a consent boundary, while pending and declined invites never expose that data. This is important context about data sensitivity and response contents.
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 with no wasted words. The core verb and resource are front-loaded, followed by status enumeration and the consent-boundary caveat. 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?
Given the low complexity (one optional parameter), rich safety annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly. It covers the resource, the filtering concept, the status values, and the key behavioral caveat about PII. No critical information is missing.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It repeats the enum values (pending / accepted / declined / expired / failed), which helps, but it does not explicitly explain that the optional 'status' parameter filters results or what omitting it returns. The meaning is partially conveyed but not fully specified.
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 ('List'), a precise resource ('marketplace invites you have sent'), and enumerates the status categories. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like tascan_invite_worker (sending) and tascan_search_marketplace (searching). An agent can immediately understand what the tool does and what it does not do.
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 when to use the tool: whenever you need to see the status of invites you have sent. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as 'use tascan_invite_worker to send invites instead.' The context is clear but the exclusion guidance is left to inference.
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.
