Capture an idea for later with an optional due date, project, and context so you can track and revisit it without losing the thought.
Park an idea for later, with an optional due date (natural language ok), project and context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| due | No | ISO date or natural text like 'friday 3pm' | |
| title | Yes | ||
| context | No | ||
| details | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| nagEveryMinutes | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says "park ... for later" which hints at persistence, but it never discloses what the tool returns, whether a duplicate title is rejected, or what nagEveryMinutes does (a recurring reminder is a significant side effect left entirely unexplained).
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, leading with the core action. It is efficient but arguably too short for a six-parameter mutating tool with a nested object.
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?
Six parameters including a nested context object, no output schema, no annotations, and only 17% schema coverage demand a richer description. Key behaviors (nagging cadence, whether details/context are optional, what gets stored and returned) are undocumented, leaving an agent to guess.
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 only 17%, so the description needs to compensate but doesn't. It mentions only due, project and context in passing, and omits details (5000-char body), nagEveryMinutes, and the structure of the context object (repo, files, branch, source, summary). The one useful clarification, "natural language ok" for due, repeats what the schema already says.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ("park an idea for later") and names the differentiating elements (due date, project, context). It implicitly contrasts with siblings like get_idea/complete_idea by describing a capture-and-defer action, though it never names an alternative.
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?
Usage is only implied: "for later" suggests capturing ideas not currently being worked on, and the sibling set (start_idea, complete_idea) makes the intent inferable. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over start_idea or update_idea, and no prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.