Amazing Marvin MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context beyond basic functionality: it warns 'This is a heavy operation that recursively searches all projects,' which informs the agent about performance implications. It doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like rate limits or error handling, but the heavy operation warning is significant for a tool with no 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?

The description is well-structured and concise, with four sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the tool's purpose, providing usage guidelines, explaining parameters, and warning about performance. There's no wasted text, and key information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 the tool's complexity (a heavy search operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics for one parameter, and a performance warning. The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those. It could improve by documenting the 'debug' parameter, but overall it provides sufficient context for agent use.

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%, so the description must compensate. It documents the 'label' parameter: 'Optional label name to filter by. If None, returns all tasks.' However, it doesn't mention the 'debug' parameter at all, leaving it undocumented. Since it covers 1 of 2 parameters (50% coverage), it partially compensates but not fully, meeting the baseline for moderate schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get all tasks across all projects with optional label filtering (comprehensive search).' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('tasks across all projects'), and scope ('comprehensive search'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_tasks' or 'get_completed_tasks', which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use when you need to search/filter across your entire task system. For daily focus, use get_daily_productivity_overview() instead.' This clearly states when to use this tool (comprehensive search) and when to use an alternative (daily focus), which is ideal for agent decision-making.

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