Close a project in Teamleader Focus and optionally mark its tasks and materials as done when wrapping up work.
Mark a project as closed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The project ID to close | |
| closing_strategy | No | How to handle underlying tasks/materials when closing (default: none) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the state change ('close'), but does not disclose what happens to underlying tasks or materials (despite the closing_strategy parameter hinting at this), whether it is reversible, or if special permissions are required. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It earns its place by clearly stating the core action. There is no unnecessary verbosity, and the structure is optimal for the minimal information provided.
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 has only two parameters but no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the semantic difference between closing and deleting, nor the effects of the closing_strategy parameter on underlying tasks and materials. An agent cannot fully judge the impact of invoking this tool from the description alone.
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 100%, with both 'id' and 'closing_strategy' already described adequately. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but the schema already documents each parameter's purpose and the default behavior. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 specific verb and resource: 'Mark a project as closed.' This clearly distinguishes the action from siblings like teamleader_reopen_project, teamleader_delete_project, and teamleader_update_project. The purpose is immediately unambiguous.
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. There is no mention of when closing is appropriate instead of deleting, updating, or reopening, and no indication of prerequisites or consequences that would help an agent select it correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.