Retrieves initial context, permitted projects, members, workflow, and tags so agents can resolve ambiguous names to IDs before claiming or tracking tasks.
Start here: context, then all permitted projects, members, workflow, and tags. Names may be ambiguous; use returned IDs. assigneeId is member.userId.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns all permitted projects, notes that names can be ambiguous, and tells the agent to use returned IDs. It does not detail exact return fields, but it adds meaningful data-handling guidance beyond the 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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the bootstrap instruction and followed by only the two ID-handling notes an agent needs. There is no filler, and every sentence contributes.
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?
For a zero-parameter bootstrap with no output schema, the description identifies the major returned resources and includes the most important ID-mapping caveat. It stops short of describing the exact shape of the returned context or nested member/project data, but the sibling tools provide detailed listing alternatives.
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?
This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful cross-tool ID guidance ('assigneeId is member.userId') even though there are no local parameters for it to document.
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 identifies this as a bootstrap/composite read that returns context plus all permitted projects, members, workflow, and tags. It distinguishes itself from the sibling list_* tools by bundling those resources, though it does not use an explicit verb such as 'retrieves' or 'returns'.
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 phrase 'Start here' gives an explicit entry-point instruction, which is clear guidance for first-call sequencing. It does not name alternatives or explain when not to use this bootstrap, but the intended context is obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.