List geofenced work zones, optionally filtered by project. Shows center, radius, routing target, and zone-lock status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | No | Filter by project |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, signaling safe read-only behavior. The description adds value by specifying exactly what fields are returned (center, radius, routing target, zone-lock status), which aids the agent in understanding the output. No contradictions with annotations. Could further note ordering or pagination, but it's solid.
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 succinct sentences: the first states the core function and optional filter, the second lists returned fields. Every word earns its place, no fluff. Front-loaded with the primary action, making it easy to scan.
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 this is a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what data is returned. However, it does not clarify whether omitting project_id lists all zones across all projects or if there is a default scope. Minor gap but still good.
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 input schema already describes the sole parameter (project_id: 'Filter by project') with 100% coverage. The description echoes this ('optionally filtered by project') but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. The description also includes output details unrelated to input parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
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 geofenced work zones, specifying the resource and action. It also details the optional filter by project and enumerates the displayed fields (center, radius, routing target, zone-lock status), making it distinct from sibling list tools like list_projects or list_tasks.
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 when the user wants to list geofenced zones, optionally filtering by project. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_tasks, list_events) or when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparative advice.
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.
