List existing report links for a list or project (completion / service / project / evidence), newest first, with client acknowledgment status for service reports.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list_id | No | ||
| project_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond annotations: results are 'newest first' and include 'client acknowledgment status for service reports'. It could additionally state what happens when neither parameter is provided, but it does not contradict 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?
A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds scope, ordering, and return-content details. Every phrase earns its place and no filler is present.
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?
With no output schema, the description appropriately conveys what the return contains: report links, ordering, and acknowledgment status. It is reasonably complete for a read-only listing tool, though a note about parameter requirements or behavior when both IDs are absent would make it fully self-sufficient.
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?
The schema provides only bare string property names with no descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that the tool operates 'for a list or project', mapping directly to list_id and project_id. While it does not discuss the no-required-parameters case or mutual exclusivity, the two parameters are simple and the description gives adequate meaning.
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') with a clear resource ('existing report links'), and precisely scopes the operation to a list or project with report categories. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like tascan_get_report and tascan_generate_report, which would retrieve or create reports rather than list existing links.
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 gives clear contextual guidance: use this when you need report links for a list or project, and it even enumerates report types. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but its context is strong enough for an agent to infer the appropriate use case.
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.
