reclaim-mcp-server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions listing tasks but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination (beyond the 'limit' param), or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is minimal and misses key operational details.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for 'Args' and 'Returns'. It uses minimal sentences that each add value, with no redundant information, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks context on usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, which are important for a listing tool with sibling alternatives, making it just minimally viable.

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 description adds meaning by explaining the 'limit' parameter's purpose ('Maximum number of tasks to return') and default value, which compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. With only one parameter, this is sufficient to achieve a high score, though it doesn't detail format constraints or examples.

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 ('List') and resource ('completed and archived tasks from Reclaim.ai'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'list_tasks' tool, which might list tasks with different statuses, leaving some ambiguity about sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_tasks' or other task-related tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.