List gig payments and their lifecycle status: awaiting_completion (pledged, work not verified yet), ready_to_pay (verified — pay link sent to payer), paid, canceled. Filter by task list or status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter by status | |
| task_list_id | No | Filter by task list |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining the lifecycle statuses (e.g., 'awaiting_completion' means pledged, work not verified), giving the agent behavioral context beyond the safe read operation. No contradictions with 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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the purpose, explains lifecycle statuses, and notes filtering options. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or verbosity.
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 read-only list tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, status meanings, and filtering. It could mention potential limitations like pagination or result size, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.
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%, with both parameters ('status' and 'task_list_id') already clearly documented in the schema. The description merely restates that filtering is by task list or status, adding no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 tool lists gig payments and explains their lifecycle statuses with specific meanings. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('gig payments'), and distinguishes itself from sibling list tools (e.g., list_tasks, list_workers) by specifying 'payments' and detailing statuses.
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 usage for listing payments but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like tascan_list_tasks or tascan_request_payment. There are no exclusions, conditions, or comparative context given, leaving the agent to infer from the purpose alone.
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.
