Create, list, claim, update, or complete durable project tasks. Enables coding agents to coordinate shared project work through persistent task management.
Create, list, claim, update, or complete durable project tasks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| taskId | No | ||
| priority | No | ||
| createdBy | No | unknown-agent | |
| operation | Yes | ||
| assigneeId | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| dependencies | No | ||
| parentTaskId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails it. 'Durable' hints at persistence but the description never states side effects of create/update, whether tasks are shared or scoped to an agent, permission requirements, or what a claim/complete workflow involves. For a mutating multi-operation tool this is a significant gap.
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 short sentence is well front-loaded and free of padding, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. The terseness comes at the cost of the information an agent needs.
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?
With 10 parameters, three enums, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description needs to carry substantial weight and instead delivers one clause. An agent cannot determine operation-specific parameter requirements or the task lifecycle from it.
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% across 10 parameters, and the description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever. It says nothing about which fields apply to which operation, what taskId vs parentTaskId vs dependencies do, or the role of status/priority enums. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 names a specific resource (durable project tasks) and a set of verbs, so the general purpose is legible. However, two of the listed verbs ('claim', 'complete') are not valid values of the operation enum (create/list/update), so an agent reading only the description would form a wrong mental model of the tool's capabilities. Combined with no differentiation from the eight sibling tools, this is minimum-viable clarity with a real inaccuracy.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as project_context, review_request, or artifact_manage. No prerequisites, no context about which operation to pick for a given intent. Only the verb list implies usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.