Add a new data source to a project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The URL of the data source | |
| type | Yes | The type of data source | |
| session_id | Yes | The anonymous session ID | |
| project_slug | Yes | The slug of the project to add the data source to |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention any behavioral traits such as side effects, requirements (e.g., project existence), failure modes, or return values. It is a bare action statement.
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 clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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 annotations, no output schema, and only a one-sentence description, the tool lacks important context about expected outcomes, error conditions, or side effects. A more complete description would explain what happens on success or any caveats.
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 provides descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline is 3 since the schema handles the parameter explanations.
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 verb ('add'), the resource ('data source'), and the target context ('to a project'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_tool and delete_data_source based on the naming and action.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states the action without any context on prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions.
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 are clearly distinct, targeting specific resources (projects, data sources, tools) and actions (add, create, delete, update). Slight overlap exists between toggle_tool and update_tool, and between add_data_source and add_tool, but descriptions clarify the differences.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case, such as add_data_source, create_project, delete_tool, and reorder_steps. No mixing of conventions or vague verbs.
13 tools is within the ideal range for a project management server. Each tool serves a clear purpose in managing projects, data sources, tools, and sessions, without unnecessary redundancy.
Core CRUD operations are covered for projects and tools, with additional operations like reorder and toggle. Minor gaps exist: data sources lack an update operation, and there's no explicit list/get for tools or data sources, but project details likely cover this.
