reclaim-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the default exclusion of completed tasks and provides parameter details, but lacks information on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. It adds some context but does not fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return values, but could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like authentication or error cases, though the output schema reduces the need for return value details.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: 'status' as comma-separated task statuses with examples, and 'limit' as maximum number of tasks with a default. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could detail format constraints more.

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's purpose with specific verb ('List') and resource ('active tasks from Reclaim.ai'), and distinguishes it from siblings by noting it excludes completed tasks by default. This differentiates it from tools like 'list_completed_tasks' and 'get_task'.

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 clear context by specifying it lists active tasks and excludes completed ones by default, which implicitly guides usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like 'list_completed_tasks' or 'get_task' for specific needs, missing explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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