Add, remove, or list tags on files, and find files by matching tags to organize and retrieve local content.
Manage desk tags: add/rm/ls tags on a file, or find files by tags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | File (add/rm/ls). | |
| root | No | Desk root (default: server --root / cwd). | |
| tags | No | Tags to add/remove, or all-of tags to find. | |
| action | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates that add/rm mutate tags, but does not disclose permissions, reversibility, persistence, duplicate-tag behavior, or what find returns beyond the vague phrase 'files by tags'.
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 a single compact sentence with no wasted words, and the core operations are front-loaded. It communicates the tool's scope quickly.
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 four-parameter mutation/query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits the root parameter, the all-of semantics for find, and any behavioral details about tag removal or lookup results.
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 coverage is 75%, and the schema already documents path, root, tags, and the action enum. The description loosely maps actions to path/tags but adds no syntax, tag format, or root behavior beyond what the schema provides.
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 states a clear verb and resource: manage desk tags with add/rm/ls and find operations. It distinguishes the tag-management purpose from most siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with carrel_search for tag-based lookup.
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 action list implies when each operation is appropriate, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of siblings such as carrel_search. Alternatives and exclusions are left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.