Context Continuation MCP Server

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. 'Add a project milestone' implies a write operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise at three words, front-loading the core action and resource without any wasted text. It efficiently communicates the essential purpose in a minimal format, earning full marks for brevity and clarity.

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 as a write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or how it integrates with the project context implied by sibling tools. For a mutation tool in this environment, more context is needed to ensure proper usage.

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?

The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already documents all parameters (projectPath, title, description, status) with details like required fields, defaults, and enums. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage by the schema alone, with no extra value from the description.

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 action ('Add') and resource ('project milestone'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings that might also modify project data, such as 'context_log_decision' or 'context_track_message', which could involve similar project operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active session or project), exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'context_get_project_summary' or 'context_get_status', which might be used before or after adding milestones.

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