Scored across 30 tools
Each tool targets a clearly distinct resource and action, with explicit boundaries between similar operations (e.g., add_entry vs add_summary vs add_verdict, transition vs close_task). The descriptions explicitly state which tool to use for which purpose, preventing misselection despite the large number of tools.
The vast majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_task, get_project, read_entries). A few tools use single verbs (ask, answer, resolve, link, unlink) and one uses a noun/verb (transition), but these are conventional and still readable.
With 30 tools, the set is on the heavy side for an MCP server, though the domain is complex and many tools have specialized roles. Some consolidation could be possible (e.g., entry-filing tools), making the count borderline rather than clearly appropriate.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of tasks, projects, entries, participants, attributes, links, and a journal stream. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose; operations like archive/restore, attribute management, and entry reading are all present.