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 states the action 'mark as complete' but doesn't mention side effects (e.g., if completion triggers notifications or updates analytics), permissions required, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 structured Args and Returns sections. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the Returns section could be more informative given the output schema exists.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic action and parameter, but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective tool selection.

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 adds meaning by specifying that 'task_id' identifies the task to mark as complete, but doesn't explain format constraints or provide examples. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of detail beyond basic identification reduces it to 3.

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 'mark as complete' and the resource 'task', making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_task' or 'restart_task', which might also modify task status, so it misses full 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'update_task' (which might allow status changes) or 'restart_task' (which could reset completion). The description lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction.

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