panel-todo-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct resources and actions, but panelTodo_complete and panelTodo_remove both remove todos (differing only in completion status), and listIssues/searchIssues/getBacklog overlap in listing issues with different filters. The descriptions clearly distinguish these cases, so overall it remains unambiguous.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools share the consistent panelTodo_ prefix and use lowerCamelCase verb_noun style. The only deviation is panelTodo_status, which uses a noun instead of a verb. The pattern is otherwise predictable and coherent.
Tool Count2/5
With 38 tools, the count far exceeds the typical threshold of 25 and feels heavy for a server named 'panel-todo'. While the scope covers many entities, several tools overlap (e.g., complete vs remove, list vs search vs backlog) and could be consolidated. The count would be more appropriate if split into separate local and Pro servers.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides full CRUD coverage for issues, sprints, tags, and comments, along with essential operations for local todos and projects. The only notable gap is the lack of an updateProject tool, but agents can work around this by using switchProject or recreating projects. Overall, the domain is well covered with minor dead ends.
Average 3.6/5 across 38 of 38 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
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 only says 'Configure' without explaining side effects such as whether settings persist, if devMode changes the API URL, or if existing configuration is overwritten. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like setup tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is efficient and to the point. However, the parenthetical list is imprecise (mentions API URL but omits devMode and devUserId), making it overly terse for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters and no annotations, the description lacks essential context: when to configure, how devMode relates to the API URL, whether this is required before other tools, and how it differs from switchProject. An output schema exists, but it doesn't compensate for these behavioral and usage gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented. The description adds the term 'API URL' but doesn't map it to devMode or any parameter, and merely repeats 'token' and 'project' from the schema. It provides minimal extra meaning, staying at the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a configuration action ('Configure Panel Todo Pro connection') and lists key components (API URL, token, project). It distinguishes itself from data-operation siblings by focusing on connection setup, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like switchProject, and mentions 'API URL' which isn't an actual parameter, causing slight ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as switchProject or listProjects. It doesn't state whether this is a prerequisite for other operations or explain the role of devMode, leaving the agent without contextual cues for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation, but there is no explicit statement about non-destructiveness, side effects, authentication, or scoping (e.g., current project vs all projects). The description adds minimal value beyond the title.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the action. It does not waste words, but it largely repeats the title 'List Sprints', adding only 'all' and 'from Panel Todo Pro'. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though not exceptionally informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema, so return values are likely covered. However, the description lacks context about whether sprints are scoped to the current project or across all projects, especially given sibling tools like switchProject. This ambiguity reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers the single parameter 'status' with an enum and description, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('sprints'), with 'all' indicating scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like getSprint (which retrieves a single sprint) and createSprint/updateSprint/deleteSprint (which modify). However, it omits the optional status filter, which is a minor gap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of 'use this to view all sprints' or 'use getSprint for a specific sprint'. The description simply states the action without context on selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only says 'Update an existing issue' but does not mention partial update semantics, validation rules, error behavior, or side effects such as unassignment or sprint removal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is easy to parse, though slightly more detail could have been included without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having a rich input schema and an output schema, the description is too thin for a mutation tool. It provides no information about how partial updates work, whether the issue must exist, or what happens when invalid values are supplied, leaving the agent to infer critical details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and every parameter has a clear description including special values like 'null to unassign' and 'empty string to remove from sprint'. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Update') and identifies the resource ('existing issue in Panel Todo Pro'), clearly conveying the tool's core function. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'panelTodo_update', which could be ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like panelTodo_update, panelTodo_completeIssue, or panelTodo_moveIssueToSprint. The description only states what it does, not the context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'mark as done' but does not reveal side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or the system's definition of 'done'. This is a minimal acknowledgment of a state change without meaningful transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence of eight words that clearly states the action with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately concise for a simple operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one well-specified parameter and an output schema, so the minimal description may suffice. However, it lacks any context about usage, side effects, or disambiguation from the similar-sounding 'panelTodo_complete' sibling, making it only partially complete in the broader tool ecosystem.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'issueId' is fully described in the schema ('Issue ID to complete') yielding 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond the schema, such as how to obtain the ID or expected format, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'mark' and identifies the resource as 'an issue' in Panel Todo Pro, clearly indicating the operation. It distinguishes from sibling issue tools like addIssue/deleteIssue but does not address potential ambiguity with the closely named 'panelTodo_complete' sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'panelTodo_complete' for other entities, or whether any prerequisites apply. The description contains only the core action with no usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only notes 'requires Pro configuration' and omits any side effects, permissions, pagination, or read-only nature. The output schema exists but is not referenced in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the Pro requirement without wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks guidance on distinguishing from searchIssues and does not mention default behavior or result size, leaving some gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., filter by status, assignee). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all issues from Panel Todo Pro, with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling searchIssues tool, but the 'all issues' scope helps distinguish it from single-issue and search tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 only mentions a prerequisite (Pro configuration) but no context for selecting this over searchIssues or other list/get tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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 only restates the action ('add') without revealing idempotency, effects of duplicate tags, permission requirements, or error handling. This is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that states the action clearly. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, making it optimally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool has a simple signature and an output schema exists, the description omits critical context such as prerequisites (tag/issue must exist), whether the operation is idempotent, and any side effects. This leaves the agent without enough information for confident execution.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with basic descriptions for tagId and issueId. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add a tag to an issue' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like removeTagFromIssue. It is direct and unambiguous about the operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through its verb and the presence of sibling tools like createTag and removeTagFromIssue, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or provide exclusions. No alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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, but it only states the bare action without any side effects, permission requirements, or reversibility. For example, it does not mention that creating a project may automatically switch to it (implied by the default switchTo parameter) or that keys must be unique. This is a significant transparency 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly written sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and object immediately, making it scannable and efficient. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and a 4-parameter input schema, the description is extremely minimal. It does not explain important contextual behaviors such as the unique key constraint, the impact of switching projects, or what the tool returns upon success. For a creation tool that may have side effects on the current project state, this level of incompleteness leaves the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (name, key, switchTo, description) already documented in the JSON Schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies per the rubric: the schema carries the semantic weight, and the description does not compensate beyond that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new Panel Todo Pro project' uses a specific verb ('Create'), a clear resource ('project'), and identifies the application context ('Panel Todo Pro'). It unambiguously distinguishes this tool from its siblings like panelTodo_createSprint or panelTodo_createTag, which target different entity types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 does not mention prerequisites, situations where creation is appropriate, or exclusions. While sibling tools like panelTodo_listProjects and panelTodo_switchProject imply complementary actions, the description offers no explicit comparison or usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 fails to mention side effects (e.g., whether the issue is removed from its current sprint), validation requirements, or any constraints on sprint state. The description is too terse to convey behavioral implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the action. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could add a bit more context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple interface with two required parameters and an output schema present, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks important context about side effects and prerequisites. For a mutation tool, it should at least hint at consequences of moving an issue, making it minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('Issue ID to move' and 'Sprint ID to move the issue to'). The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('move') and resource ('issue' to 'sprint'), making it unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools. There is no other move operation in the sibling list, so it is well-differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or relationships to other sprint-related tools. It simply states the action without contextual usage cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and does not mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., issue must exist), or response behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary wording. It is front-loaded with the verb and object, making it appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides adequate purpose but lacks any usage context or behavioral detail. It is minimally sufficient but not comprehensive, leaving gaps in when and how to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes both parameters (issueId and content) with clear descriptions, covering 100% of parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, aligning with the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('comment to an issue'), clearly distinguishing the tool from sibling tools like deleteComment, updateComment, and listComments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 does not mention exclusions or alternative tools for related operations such as updating or deleting comments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and scope but does not disclose potential side effects, failure modes (e.g., duplicate name), or permission requirements. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential action without redundancy. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the schema fully covers parameters and an output schema exists, the description omits important context such as how the 'current project' is selected or what happens if no project is active. For a simple create tool, the core purpose is covered but there are gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes both parameters (name and color) with formats and examples. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'create' with the resource 'tag' and scopes it to the current project, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like listTags, updateTag, and deleteTag. It is concise and unambiguous about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as updateTag or addTagToIssue. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative mentions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so description carries full burden. It does not mention side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error handling; only the action itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single, clear sentence with no wasted words; appropriately front-loaded and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter removal tool, the description plus schema may suffice, but it lacks usage context and behavioral safeguards. Output schema may cover return values, but overall context is minimal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema fully describes both parameters with clear descriptions ('Tag ID to remove', 'Issue ID'), and the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action 'Remove a tag from an issue', which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like panelTodo_addTagToIssue.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives; the description only states the operation without context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action itself. It does not mention side effects, permissions, reversibility, cascading behavior, or what the output contains. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged in the text.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple delete tool, though slightly under-specified for the project context, it remains efficiently front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description meets the minimum viable threshold but adds little beyond the obvious. It does not clarify relationships with other entities (e.g., whether the tag is removed from issues), which a user might need to know in a project-management context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the tagId parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, such as how to obtain the ID or whether it can be a name instead of an ID.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('tag') with a scope ('from the project'), making it distinct from sibling delete tools that target comments, issues, sprints, or projects. It clearly states what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for removing tags, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide any exclusions. No context is given about when this should be invoked versus other tag-related tools like updateTag or addTagToIssue.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without explaining side effects, validation rules, permissions, or response behavior. For a mutation 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and target. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schema and output schema cover most operational details, but the description lacks context about prerequisites, defaults, and behavior when optional fields are omitted. It is minimally viable but not fully contextual.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 applies because schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Create' with a clear resource 'sprint', making the action unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes itself from siblings like updateSprint, startSprint, and deleteSprint.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied by the verb 'Create' but no explicit guidance is provided about when to use this instead of updating or starting a sprint. It does not mention prerequisites such as needing an active project or any alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the destructive action and the Backlog restriction, but does not mention what happens to issues in the sprint (despite a moveToBacklog parameter), whether deletion is reversible, or any state requirements (e.g., cannot delete an active sprint). For a destructive tool, this is under-disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences: 'Delete a sprint. Cannot delete the default Backlog sprint.' Every word is purposeful, with no redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded with the primary action and immediately gives a key constraint.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema and the input schema covers parameters, but the operation is destructive and has a non-obvious parameter (moveToBacklog). The description does not mention consequences for issues or any additional constraints beyond the Backlog restriction. It is minimally viable but leaves out important behavioral context that a user would need for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (sprintId and moveToBacklog), so the schema already provides full parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-level information, which aligns with the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Delete a sprint.' It also adds a specific constraint ('Cannot delete the default Backlog sprint'), which distinguishes it from generic deletion and provides key scope information. This is a specific verb+resource pair with a useful nuance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (to delete a sprint) and provides one exclusion (cannot delete the default Backlog sprint). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., completeSprint, updateSprint) or provide criteria for choosing delete over other sprint operations. The guidance is minimal but not misleading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., changing the active project context for subsequent operations), prerequisites (e.g., the target project must exist), or any state changes expected. This is a significant gap for a state-modifying tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It earns full marks for conciseness and clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one required parameter, full schema coverage, output schema exists), so the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral context about what 'switching' entails (e.g., changing the working project for subsequent Panel Todo operations), making it incomplete for an AI agent trying to understand the tool's full impact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents the single parameter 'projectId' with a clear description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional context or syntax beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for full coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Switch') and a clear resource ('different Panel Todo Pro project'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like listProjects or createProject by focusing on changing the active project.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (to switch projects) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives like listProjects or createProject. There are no exclusion criteria or context signals beyond the direct instruction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral context. It only says 'Get details', which largely restates the title, and fails to disclose that both parameters are optional, whether at least one is required, or what happens if neither is provided. Nor does it mention any read-only guarantees or error semantics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It communicates the core purpose efficiently, though it is brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the output schema covers return values and the input schema covers parameter definitions, the description omits critical operational context: it doesn't clarify that at least one identifier is required or how the tool behaves with both params omitted. It also doesn't differentiate itself from list/search tools, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance for a simple get operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides full descriptions for key and issueId, including examples, so the schema covers parameter semantics. The description's mention of 'ID or key' aligns with the schema but adds no additional context such as parameter precedence or mutual exclusivity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get details of a specific issue by ID or key', identifying the action (get) and resource (issue), and the specificity distinguishes it from list/search siblings. The example 'PT-1' reinforces the expected identifier format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for when you have a known issue ID or key, but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools like listIssues/searchIssues are not referenced, though the 'specific issue' wording hints at the distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says what the tool does, not side effects, requirements (e.g., tag must exist), or behavior when neither name nor color is provided. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, succinct sentence front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, the schema covers parameters, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. The description is adequate for basic understanding, though it lacks explicit usage context and edge-case behavior, which prevents a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully explains each parameter. The description adds minimal semantic value by naming 'name or color', but does not clarify that both are optional or that at least one should be provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'existing tag', with the specific attributes that can be changed ('name or color'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like createTag and deleteTag.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied by the tool name and description; it's obviously for modifying tags, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. Sibling names provide some context but the description does not.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Create a new issue' and provides description formatting advice, but doesn't disclose side effects, return values, prerequisites, or default behaviors. This is insufficient for a create tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes only essential guidance. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 7 parameters and many sibling tools, but the description is minimal. It doesn't distinguish itself from batchCreateIssues or explain its role in the broader workflow. However, the schema and output schema cover the technical details, so the description is adequate for basic use but lacks richer context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All parameters are documented in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds a structured format for the description field (1-2-3 list), which is slightly more specific than the schema's 'implementation details, approach, and acceptance criteria,' but it's marginal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a new issue in Panel Todo Pro, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like panelTodo_updateIssue and panelTodo_batchCreateIssues, though it doesn't explicitly reference them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides specific guidance for sprint planning, instructing what to include in the description field. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like batchCreateIssues, nor when not to use it. The guidance is context-specific but not a full usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action ('Create multiple issues at once') without elaborating on potential side effects, failure behavior, atomicity, or any constraints beyond what the schema already shows. For a batch mutation tool, this is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Create multiple issues at once') followed by a relevant use case. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a straightforward batch operation given the schema covers all parameters and an output schema exists. However, it lacks behavioral details like how failures are handled (e.g., all-or-nothing vs. partial creation), which would be valuable for a batch tool. It's minimal but not severely incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptive comments for both parameters, so the schema already documents semantics effectively. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but the baseline score is 3 given the high schema coverage. It doesn't mislead or omit critical parameter context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create multiple issues at once,' which clearly specifies the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling single-issue creation tool `panelTodo_addIssue` by emphasizing batch creation. The mention of sprint planning adds practical context without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says 'Useful for sprint planning when creating many related issues,' which provides a clear scenario for when this tool is appropriate. It implies the alternative of creating issues individually via `addIssue`, though it doesn't explicitly exclude other use cases or mention when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the core action (search with filters) but does not explain return format, whether all filters are AND/OR, pagination behavior, or any side effects (though search is presumably read-only). The only extra hint is the comparative statement about being 'more powerful than listIssues', which is vague and not a behavioral specification.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and each sentence earns its place. It states the essential purpose and a key comparative advantage, with no redundant filler. This is an exemplar of concise, well-structured description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description is concise and the input schema is fully documented, the overall context could be stronger. The tool has 8 parameters and an output schema, but the description does not mention that all filters are optional or how they combine (e.g., AND/OR), nor does it indicate the read-only nature (though 'search' implies it). Given the rich schema and output schema, the description is adequate but leaves some contextual gaps that would help an agent decide on defaults or query semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and every parameter (query, status, tagIds, assignee, priority, sprintId, isBlocked, limit) already has a descriptive comment. The description's phrase 'text query and filters' adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Therefore, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds minimal semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Search' with the resource 'issues' and clarifies the mechanism 'with text query and filters'. It also differentiates from the sibling tool listIssues by stating it's 'More powerful than listIssues for finding specific issues', clearly establishing its distinct purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to find specific issues via query/filters rather than just listing all issues. It explicitly names listIssues as an alternative, showing comparative advantage. However, it does not mention when not to use it or other alternatives like getIssue, so it falls short of a full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the optional movement of incomplete issues, but does not mention preconditions (e.g., sprint must be active), irreversibility, or the effect on sprint status. The primary side effect is covered, but broader behavioral context is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and includes the optional behavior. No redundant words or filler, making it highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has only two parameters, one required, and an output schema, which reduces the need to explain return values. The description covers the core action and the optional side-effect. However, it omits details about required sprint state (e.g., must be active), but given the workflow implied by sibling tools, this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description's mention of 'move incomplete issues' echoes the moveIncomplete parameter without adding extra meaning beyond the schema, so no additional semantic value is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Complete' with resource 'sprint' and clarifies an optional side-effect (moving incomplete issues to backlog). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'completeIssue' which target a different resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose implies usage for completing sprints, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'updateSprint' or 'deleteSprint'. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, leaving the context to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the deletion is permanent, warning the agent that this action is irreversible. However, it does not elaborate on side effects, required permissions, or error behavior, leaving some uncertainty.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately states the action and target. Every word contributes information, and there is no redundant or vague language.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description is largely adequate. It confirms the permanent deletion and names the application (Panel Todo Pro), but it lacks any guidance on prerequisites or differentiation from similar tools, which would make it more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully describes issueId as 'Issue ID to delete' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional information about parameter format, how to obtain the ID, or edge cases, so it does not exceed the schema baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'permanently delete' and identifies the resource as 'an issue from Panel Todo Pro', making the operation unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like panelTodo_completeIssue and panelTodo_remove, which could be confused for related but different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as panelTodo_completeIssue or panelTodo_remove. The usage is implied by the name and description, but no alternative tools are mentioned or excluded.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the action and source, without explicitly confirming that it is read-only, side-effect-free, or has any other safety considerations. The term 'list' suggests read-only but this is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and source with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description is sufficient: it identifies the resource and storage context. It could add usage exclusions or behavioral notes, but the core information needed for a simple list operation is present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). With no parameters to explain, the description needs no additional parameter details, so the baseline of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the specific resource 'all current todo items from Panel Todo (local storage)'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like panelTodo_add and panelTodo_listIssues by focusing on todo items and local storage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when you need to view all todos) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives. It doesn't reference related tools such as panelTodo_listIssues for issues, so guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation without side effects, but the description does not explicitly state whether it is safe, how comments are ordered, or whether pagination exists. This is minimal but not misleading for a simple listing operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence of nine words, with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary information. It is concise and front-loaded, immediately conveying the tool's core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple one-parameter input schema and an output schema, which covers return values. The description is sufficient for a basic read operation, but it lacks notes on ordering or pagination behavior that could be relevant in some contexts, preventing a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents the sole parameter issueId with a description, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'on an issue' aligns with the parameter but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all comments on an issue' clearly identifies the action (list), the resource (comments), and the scope (on an issue). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like addComment, updateComment, and deleteComment, making it unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit usage guidance is provided—there is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. The context implies its use for retrieving comments on a specific issue, but it does not explicitly compare with other comment tools or note prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Check' implies read-only behavior, but the description does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or response structure. It adds context about what is checked (configuration and Pro status) but remains minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no filler words and earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no parameters and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It clearly states what the tool checks. Slightly more detail about 'configuration' could be helpful, but the description is adequate for a simple status tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies, and no additional parameter information is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb 'Check' and specifies the resource 'Panel Todo configuration and Pro status'. This distinguishes the tool from sibling CRUD/list operations, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of exclusions, and no reference to sibling tools. The description only states the function, leaving the agent without selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It only states that the tool updates text, but does not disclose error behavior, idempotency, permissions, or whether other fields are preserved. This is sparse behavioral context for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, has only two required parameters, both fully documented in the schema, and an output schema exists. The description adequately covers the operation's purpose. It lacks deeper behavioral detail, but for a straightforward text update, the provided information is mostly sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both id and text, so the schema already clearly documents each parameter's meaning. The description adds the word 'existing' which slightly clarifies that id must refer to an already-created todo, but this is minor beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update the text of an existing todo item' uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('todo item'), and specifies the exact scope ('text'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like complete or add, which perform different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating 'existing todo item' and 'new text', making it clear this tool is for modifying the text of an already-created todo. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for selection among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'update existing sprint' without disclosing whether updates are partial or full, what permissions are needed, side effects, or error behavior. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is concise and directly states the tool's purpose. No redundant words or unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the full parameter schema and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete for a simple update tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether omitted fields are left unchanged, though the schema's optionality hints at partial update. Adequate for invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already described in the schema. The description merely repeats the field names without adding extra meaning. Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing sprint', listing the editable fields (name, dates, description). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like createSprint, deleteSprint, startSprint, and completeSprint.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for modifying an existing sprint's fields. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear given the sibling tools and the straightforward purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds the behavioral context of 'local storage', which is useful, but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or the shape of the response. An output schema exists, so return information is covered elsewhere, but more detail on persistence or behavior would aid transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the key information and is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter add tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It identifies the action, resource, storage context, and is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing further explanation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the single 'text' parameter at 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add'), the resource ('todo item'), and the scope ('Panel Todo'), with a storage qualifier ('local storage'). This distinguishes it from sibling add tools for issues, sprints, and projects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose is clear enough to imply when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Since the tool is specifically for todos, the usage is self-evident, but exclusions or prerequisites are not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and 'including its issues' clarifies the return content. However, it does not disclose any error behavior or edge cases, and it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence, only 11 words, and immediately states the action and target. There is no wasted verbiage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple single-parameter get tool with an output schema present, so the description need not explain return values. The description covers the core functionality adequately and is complete for its simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'sprintId' already described as 'Sprint ID to get'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond reinforcing that the sprint must be specific, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'sprint' and adds the detail 'including its issues', making it clear what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like listSprints (which presumably lists sprints) and getIssue (which gets a single issue).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need details of one specific sprint via 'specific sprint', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like listSprints. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that completing also removes the todo from the list, which is a behavioral trait beyond the basic 'complete' action. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full transparency burden; it is mostly adequate, though it does not mention reversibility or return behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential action and effect with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise and structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple one-parameter schema and the existence of an output schema, the description is largely complete for the operation. A minor gap is the lack of explicit distinction from panelTodo_remove, which could enhance contextual completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for the only parameter 'id'. The tool description adds no additional information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'mark' with resource 'todo' and explicitly states the effect 'complete and remove it from the list'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like panelTodo_remove, which only removes without completing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The phrase 'complete and remove' implies a contrast with panelTodo_remove, but it does not directly name alternatives or state when to use this tool over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does reveal the ownership restriction, which is important. However, it omits other relevant behaviors such as the irreversibility of deletion, potential error cases, or any cascade effects, leaving the agent with incomplete behavioral information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences: the first defines the core action, the second adds a critical usage constraint. It is front-loaded, free of fluff, and every word contributes meaningful guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool, the presence of an output schema (which clarifies return values), and a well-described parameter schema, the description is largely complete. The only gap is a lack of explicit note about deletion being permanent, but for a straightforward delete operation, the existing description suffices.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (issueId and commentId), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it meets the baseline for well-documented schemas without further enhancement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (a comment from an issue). It also adds a distinguishing constraint ('You can only delete your own comments'), effectively separating it from sibling comment tools like updateComment or addComment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear usage context (deleting a comment) and an explicit exclusion (only your own comments), which guides when to use this tool. However, it does not mention alternatives like updateComment for editing or listComments for viewing, so it falls short of a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the deletion is permanent, irreversible, and cascades to issues, sprints, and tags. This is significant behavioral context beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence fronts the verb and resource, and the second emphasizes irreversibility.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter destructive tool, the description is largely complete, covering permanence and cascading effects. It does not mention return value, but an output schema exists. Minor gaps like permissions or what happens to comments are not stated, but the cascade implies them.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully documents the single `projectId` parameter with a clear description ('Project ID to delete'). The description adds no further parameter-specific detail, so it relies on the schema's 100% coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Permanently delete a project and all its issues, sprints, and tags,' providing a specific verb (delete) and resource (project) with cascading scope. This distinguishes it from sibling delete tools for issues, sprints, tags, and comments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for whole-project deletion, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over individual deletion tools like deleteIssue or deleteSprint. No alternatives are named, leaving the usage context to be inferred from the scope of deletion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It clearly states the destructive nature (removal) and differentiates from completion, which is useful context. However, it does not mention permanence, side effects on related data, or error behavior, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes a key distinction. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and key behavioral distinction. It leaves some details (such as irreversibility) implicit, but the low complexity means the description is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully documents the only parameter 'id' with a clear description, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add further parameter-level detail, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('todo from the list') and immediately distinguishes the action from completion by adding 'without completing it', which differentiates this from sibling panelTodo_complete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the appropriate use case: when you want to delete a todo rather than mark it as done. It provides an exclusion ('without completing it') but does not explicitly name alternative tools or list when-not situations beyond that, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the specific behavioral detail of changing status from planning to active. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose prerequisites, failure conditions, or side effects, so the transparency is moderate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately communicates the core action, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context of starting a sprint. It lacks explicit edge-case handling, but overall it is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes sprintId with 100% coverage, and the description does not add additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Start a sprint' and specifies the status transition from planning to active, which distinguishes it from sibling sprint operations like completeSprint or deleteSprint.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when a sprint should move from planning to active, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so a 4 is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. The phrase 'not assigned to any active sprint' clearly discloses the selection logic. The 'List' verb implies a read-only operation, though it is not explicitly stated. The presence of an output schema covers return format details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and scope, with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, an output schema is present, and the description explains the core selection criteria, the contextual coverage is sufficient. Slight ambiguity about what constitutes an 'active sprint' exists, but it is not a significant gap for a list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides full descriptions for both optional parameters (status and priority). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists issues not assigned to any active sprint, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listIssues and listSprints, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (when you need backlog items) and defines the exact scope, which differentiates it from generic issue lists. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions such as using listIssues for all issues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates a read-only operation via 'list', but it doesn't disclose any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or return value details. The simplicity of the tool mitigates the gap, but there is no extra behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to clarity. This is exemplary conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description covers all necessary context. The tool's simplicity means no further elaboration is required. The description fully enables correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema is empty and fully covered, meaning there is nothing to explain. The description adds no parameter info but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'Panel Todo Pro projects', clearly distinguishing it from sibling list tools like listIssues. The phrase 'all your' adds scope. This is unambiguous and matches the title.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the usage context (listing projects) and is self-explanatory. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the tool's purpose is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke it: whenever a list of projects is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the burden and it usefully discloses an ownership restriction that is not evident from the schema. It does not detail error behavior or permission mechanics, but for a simple update the key constraint is covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exactly two sentences, immediately states the action and target, and adds the critical ownership restriction without any fluff. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, the schema fully documents all parameters, an output schema exists, and the description covers both the operation and its key constraint. Nothing essential is missing for a well-informed invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (content, issueId, commentId) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Update') with the resource ('an existing comment'), and clarifies that only content is updated. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like addComment, deleteComment, and listComments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It states a clear usage constraint: only the user's own comments can be updated. It does not mention alternatives, but the constraint provides practical guidance on when the tool is permitted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of revealing behavior. 'List all tags' clearly implies a read-only operation with no side effects. It does not disclose preconditions like requiring a selected project, but the phrase 'current project' hints at this context. The read-only nature is sufficiently transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence (eight words) that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb 'List' and contains no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple zero-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does and its scope (current project). Return value details are covered by the output schema, so no further elaboration is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description need not add meaning beyond the schema. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the action and scope rather than parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all tags for the current project' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tags'), clearly defining the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tag management tools (createTag, updateTag, deleteTag) by focusing on retrieval, and from other list tools by specifying 'tags'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: this tool is for listing tags scoped to the current project. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but for a simple retrieval tool, the intended use is evident. Minor gap: no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of tag-related issue filters or other list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![panel-todo-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ingimar-eyfjord/panel-todo-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ingimar-eyfjord/panel-todo-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![panel-todo-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ingimar-eyfjord/panel-todo-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ingimar-eyfjord/panel-todo-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ingimar-eyfjord/panel-todo-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server