Tendem MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only covers basic behavior: it retrieves paginated results in reverse chronological order. It doesn't disclose critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or whether it's read-only/destructive. The mention of 'canvas content' in returns is vague without further explanation.

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 organized sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value: the first defines scope and ordering, and the subsequent lines efficiently document parameters and return type without redundancy.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description does a decent job explaining parameters and hinting at returns ('canvas content'). However, as a data retrieval tool with no annotations, it should more fully describe behavioral traits like pagination mechanics, error handling, or data formats to be complete.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all three parameters: task_id as a UUID, page_number as 0-indexed, and page_size with range (1-100). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema types, though it could elaborate on format or validation details.

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 action ('Get all results') and resource ('for a Tendem task'), specifying it includes intermediate results and ordering from latest to oldest. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_task_result' (singular vs. plural), leaving some ambiguity about when to use each.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'all results (including intermediate)' and pagination, suggesting it's for retrieving multiple results. But it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'get_task_result' or 'get_task', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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