Tick (done true) or untick an item, with an optional note. The worker on the visit (for a job checklist, on any visit of the job) or the office can do this. Locked once the visit or job is done, while a sign-off is waiting, and after sign-off.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| done | Yes | ||
| note | No | Replaces the note; an empty string clears it. | |
| checklist_item_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses authorization rules, the scope widening for job checklists (any visit of the job), and the lock conditions that cause rejection. It stops short of saying what a locked-item call returns or how errors surface, which the output schema may partly cover.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the boolean convention, followed by permissions and then constraints. Every sentence adds distinct information with no repetition.
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?
An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the description supplies the permission model and lock states that annotations would otherwise carry. Only the failure behavior when an item is locked is left implicit.
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 coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate; it does explain done (true = tick, presumably false = untick) and mentions the optional note. However checklist_item_id is never elaborated and no format/behavior for the note beyond 'optional' is given, leaving gaps against the low coverage baseline.
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?
States a specific verb pair (tick/untick) with the exact boolean convention (done true) and the target resource (an item), plus an optional note. This clearly separates it from sibling tools such as checklists_addItems and checklists_requestSignOff without needing to open any schema.
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?
Gives the actors who may call it (the worker on the visit, or the office for a job checklist) and the exact states in which it must not be used (visit/job done, sign-off waiting, after sign-off). It does not name sibling alternatives, but the when-not conditions are unusually explicit.
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.