Return normalized, authorized Project state and a brief contract that separates planned work from completed work for accurate team updates.
Return normalized authorized Project state plus a contract for producing a team brief without treating planned work as completed work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| first | No | ||
| owner | Yes | ||
| number | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered externally. The description adds one genuine behavioral note: planned work should not be reported as completed, which hints at a normalization/correctness contract, but it does not explain what 'authorized' scope means or how normalization behaves.
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?
It is a single sentence with no filler, which is good, but the dense abstract phrasing ('normalized authorized Project state plus a contract') front-loads jargon rather than the concrete outcome an agent needs. Short but not well-structured for scanning.
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?
There is no output schema, the three parameters are undocumented, and the description does not describe the returned structure or the 'contract' it promises. For a read tool returning a complex normalized state object, this leaves the agent guessing at both inputs and outputs.
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 0% and the description says nothing about owner, number, or first (including the max-100 pagination cap). With three undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap entirely.
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 verb 'Return' and resource 'Project state' are present, but 'contract for producing a team brief' is jargon that obscures what is actually returned, and the description never distinguishes this from the closely named sibling 'get_project_brief' or 'get_github_project_snapshot'. An agent cannot confidently route between these three.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given, despite several sibling tools (get_project_brief, get_github_project_snapshot, list_github_project_items) that plausibly overlap. The phrase 'without treating planned work as completed work' implies a use case but is not framed as guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.