Una implementación de servidor de Protocolo de Contexto de Modelo (MCP) para Dart, que proporciona capacidades de gestión de tareas, manejo de documentos y organización del espacio de trabajo a través de herramientas MCP.
Node.js 16.x o superior
Python 3.8 o superior
SDK de Dart Python instalado ( pip install dart-sdk )
Un token de API de Dart válido
Related MCP server: Dart MCP Server
Gestión de tareas
Crear y actualizar tareas
Establecer prioridades y estados de las tareas
Asignar tareas a los miembros del equipo
Gestión de documentos
Crear y organizar documentos
Soporte para contenido rebajado
Generación de informes
Gestión del espacio
Crear y gestionar espacios de trabajo
Organizar el contenido con carpetas
Controlar permisos de acceso
Integración de dardos
Gestión del estado predeterminado
Organización de tareas
Colaboración en equipo
Para instalar Dart MCP Server para Claude Desktop automáticamente a través de Smithery :
npx -y @smithery/cli install @jmanhype/dart-mcp-server --client claudeClonar el repositorio:
git clone https://github.com/jmanhype/dart-mcp-server.git
cd dart-mcp-serverInstalar las dependencias de Node.js:
npm installConfigurar el entorno de Python e instalar Dart SDK:
# Create and activate virtual environment
python -m venv .venv
source .venv/bin/activate # On Windows: .venv\Scripts\activate
# Install Dart SDK
pip install dart-sdkConfigurar variables de entorno:
# Copy example environment file
cp .env.example .env
# Edit .env with your configuration
# Required: DART_TOKEN
# Optional: PYTHONPATH (path to dart sdk)Construya el código TypeScript:
npm run buildInicie el servidor MCP:
npm start# Watch for TypeScript changes
npm run dev
# Run tests
npm testCrea un archivo .env con las siguientes variables:
# Required: Your Dart API token
DART_TOKEN=your_dart_token_here
# Optional: Path to your Dart SDK installation
PYTHONPATH=/path/to/dart/sdk
# Optional: Python executable path (defaults to system Python)
PYTHON_PATH=/path/to/pythoncreate_task : Crea nuevas tareas con título, descripción, prioridad, etc.
update_task : Actualizar el estado, el título y la descripción de las tareas existentes
get_default_status : Obtener DUID de estado predeterminado
get_default_space : Obtener el DUID del espacio predeterminado
get_dartboards : Lista de dianas disponibles
get_folders : Lista las carpetas en un espacio
create_folder : Crea nuevas carpetas
create_doc : Crea nuevos documentos o informes
create_space : Crea nuevos espacios de trabajo
delete_space : Eliminar espacios de trabajo existentes
Si encuentra problemas:
Verificar el entorno de Python:
python --version
pip list | grep dartCompruebe la instalación del SDK de Dart:
python -c "import dart; print(dart.__version__)"Verificar variables de entorno:
echo $DART_TOKEN
echo $PYTHONPATHLicencia MIT
Licencia de versiones de Python compatibles con PyPI
Dart es gestión de proyectos impulsada por IA.
dart-tools es la biblioteca de Dart CLI y Python. Permite la integración directa con Dart mediante una CLI de terminal o mediante Python.
Instalación
Usando la CLI
Uso de la biblioteca de Python
Uso de la biblioteca Python en funciones AWS Lambda
Uso del servidor MCP
Uso avanzado
Ayuda y recursos
Contribuyendo
Licencia
En la terminal, instale ejecutando
pip install dart-toolsComience configurando la autenticación con
dart loginLuego, puedes crear una nueva tarea con un comando como el siguiente:
dart createtask "Update the landing page" -p0 --tag marketinglo que creará una nueva tarea llamada 'Actualizar la página de destino' con prioridad 'Crítica' (es decir, P0) y con la etiqueta 'marketing'.
Puede explorar todas estas opciones y muchas más con dart --help o la ayuda más específica para subcomandos, en este caso dart createtask --help .
Otro flujo de trabajo común es actualizar una tarea preexistente. Para ello, ejecute algo como
dart updatetask [DUID] -s DoneEste comando marcará la tarea referenciada como "Finalizada". En este caso, [DUID] debe reemplazarse (incluidos los corchetes) por el ID de Dart de una tarea existente. Puede obtener el DUID de cualquier tarea existente de varias maneras, como copiándolo del final de la URL de la tarea o haciendo clic en el botón "..." en la página de una tarea en Dart y seleccionando "Copiar ID".
Primero, configure la autenticación. Ejecute dart login en la terminal para un proceso interactivo, o visite su perfil de Dart y luego ejecute dart.login(token) o guarde el token en la variable de entorno DART_TOKEN .
Luego puedes ejecutar algo como
import os
from dart import create_task, is_logged_in, update_task
# Check that auth is set up and stop if not, can remove this once everything is set up
is_logged_in(should_raise=True)
# Create a new task called 'Update the landing page' with priority 'Critical' (i.e. p0) and with the 'marketing' tag
new_task = create_task(
"Update the landing page", priority_int=0, tag_titles=["marketing"]
)
# Update the task to be 'Done'
update_task(new_task.duid, status_title="Done")La implementación del servidor del Protocolo de Contexto de Modelo (MCP) permite que los asistentes de IA (como Claude) interactúen con Dart mediante herramientas estandarizadas. Esto facilita una integración fluida de las capacidades de IA con el sistema de gestión de tareas de Dart.
# Clone the repository
git clone https://github.com/its-dart/dart-tools.git
cd dart-tools/dart/mcp
# Install dependencies
npm install
# Set up Python environment
python -m venv .venv
source .venv/bin/activate # On Windows: .venv\Scripts\activate
pip install dart-tools
# Configure environment
cp .env.example .env
# Edit .env with your DART_TOKENEl servidor proporciona estas herramientas MCP:
Gestión de tareas (crear/actualizar tareas)
Gestión de documentos (crear/organizar documentos)
Gestión del espacio (espacios de trabajo/carpetas)
Integración de dardos
Para obtener documentación detallada, consulte el archivo README del servidor MCP .
Casi todo lo que se puede hacer en Dart se puede hacer con la biblioteca de Python, pero no existen funciones contenedoras convenientes para todo. Para usos más avanzados, lo mejor es contactarnos y podemos ayudarle.
Sin embargo, si desea explorar por su cuenta, el cliente está bien tipificado, así que puede simplemente explorar el código para ver qué es posible. Todas las actualizaciones se realizarán mediante la función dart.transact .
Como ejemplo, podrías ejecutar algo parecido a update_task con
from dart import (
Dart,
Operation,
OperationKind,
OperationModelKind,
TaskUpdate,
TransactionKind,
)
# Initialize the inner client
dart = Dart()
# Prepare the update operation
task_update = TaskUpdate(
duid="[DUID]",
size=5,
)
task_update_op = Operation(
model=OperationModelKind.TASK,
kind=OperationKind.UPDATE,
data=task_update,
)
# Call the operation transactionally to perform the update
response = dart.transact([task_update_op], TransactionKind.TASK_UPDATE)Página principal
Aplicación web
Centro de ayuda
Errores y características
Fuente de la biblioteca
Chat en Discord
Envíenos un correo electrónico a support@itsdart.com
¡Agradecemos sus contribuciones! Abra un problema o envíe una solicitud de incorporación de cambios.
Este proyecto está licenciado bajo la licencia MIT.
Create a new document or report
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder_duid | Yes | Folder DUID to create the document in | |
| title | Yes | Title of the document | |
| text | No | Content of the document | |
| text_markdown | No | Markdown content of the document | |
| report_kind | No | Kind of report (if creating a report) | |
| editor_duids | No | List of editor DUIDs | |
| subscriber_duids | No | List of subscriber DUIDs |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new document or report' implies a write/mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions needed, whether creation is reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place. No structural issues or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the relationship between document vs. report creation, what happens when text vs. text_markdown is provided, or what the tool returns. The agent lacks critical context about this write operation's behavior and outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the basic concept of 'document or report' creation. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with any extra context about parameter relationships or usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('document or report'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate between creating documents versus reports or explain how this tool differs from sibling tools like create_folder or create_space, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing a folder DUID), when to choose document vs. report creation, or how this differs from sibling tools like create_folder or create_task. The agent must infer usage from parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create a new folder in a space
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| space_duid | Yes | Space DUID to create the folder in | |
| title | Yes | Title of the folder | |
| description | No | Description of the folder | |
| kind | No | Kind of folder | Default |
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 states this is a creation operation but doesn't mention required permissions, whether it's idempotent, error conditions, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what permissions are needed, or potential side effects. Given the complexity of creating resources and the lack of structured behavioral information, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about parameters beyond what's already in the schema, which meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new folder in a space'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_doc' or 'create_space' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_doc' or 'create_space', nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create a new space
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Title of the space | |
| description | No | Description of the space | |
| abrev | No | Short abbreviation for the space | |
| accessible_by_team | No | Whether the space is accessible by the whole team | |
| accessible_by_user_duids | No | List of user DUIDs who can access the space | |
| icon_kind | No | Kind of icon to use | None |
| icon_name_or_emoji | No | Icon name or emoji character | |
| color_hex | No | Color in hex format (e.g. #FF0000) | |
| sprint_mode | No | Sprint mode for the space | None |
| sprint_replicate_on_rollover | No | Whether to replicate sprints on rollover | |
| sprint_name_fmt | No | Sprint name format |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new space' implies a mutation/write operation, but the description doesn't mention required permissions, whether this operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with 11 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise at just three words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every sentence (in this case, the single phrase) earns its place by communicating the core purpose efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (11 parameters, creation operation) and absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what a 'space' is conceptually, what happens after creation, or provide any behavioral context. For a tool with this level of complexity and no structured safety/behavior annotations, the description should do more heavy lifting.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('a new space'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling creation tools like create_doc, create_folder, or create_task, which all follow the same 'Create a new X' pattern without explaining what distinguishes a 'space' from those other resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when to choose create_space over create_folder or create_doc, or any contextual constraints. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create a new Dart task
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Title of the task | |
| description | Yes | Description of the task | |
| priority | No | Priority of the task | |
| tags | No | Tags for the task | |
| size | No | Size/complexity of the task (1-5) | |
| assignee_duids | No | List of assignee DUIDs | |
| subscriber_duids | No | List of subscriber DUIDs |
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. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure, whether the creation is immediate or queued, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise - a single 4-word sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and earns its place efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'Dart task' is, what happens after creation, whether there are side effects, or what the agent should expect as a result. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects of this creation operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with all 7 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('Dart task'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'create_doc', 'create_folder', or 'create_space' - all of which create different types of resources in the same system.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when to choose this over other creation tools, or any context about what constitutes a 'Dart task' versus other resource types. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Delete a space and all its contents
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| space_duid | Yes | DUID of the space to delete |
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 states the tool deletes 'a space and all its contents,' which implies destructive behavior, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether deletion is reversible, confirmation prompts, or error conditions. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Delete a space') and adds critical scope ('and all its contents') without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clarifying the tool's impact.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on permissions, reversibility, success/error responses, or dependencies (e.g., cannot delete default spaces). Given the high-risk nature of deletion, more context is needed to guide safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'space_duid' documented as 'DUID of the space to delete.' The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or validation rules, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Delete') and resource ('a space and all its contents'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_space, update_task, or get_folders. It precisely communicates the destructive nature of the operation beyond just the space itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites for deletion. While the destructive nature is implied, there's no explicit mention of when-not conditions (e.g., irreversible, requires permissions) or alternatives like archiving instead of deleting.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get available dartboards
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| space_duid | Yes | Space DUID to get dartboards from |
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. 'Get available dartboards' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify what 'available' means (e.g., accessible vs. all), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or the return format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a read operation with one required parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'available' entails, the return structure, or error conditions. For a tool with minimal structured data, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'space_duid' documented as 'Space DUID to get dartboards from'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that dartboards are retrieved from a space. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get available dartboards' clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'dartboards', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_folders' or 'get_default_space' beyond the resource name, and the term 'available' adds some specificity but could be more precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a space DUID), exclusions, or how it differs from other 'get' tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the parameter alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the default space DUID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only), but doesn't clarify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data or just an ID, or what happens if no default space exists. The description is minimal and lacks important operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple zero-parameter retrieval tool and is perfectly front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'DUID' means, what format the return value takes, whether this is a simple ID or full object, or error conditions. The agent lacks critical information to use this tool effectively despite its simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('default space DUID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_folders' or 'get_dartboards' beyond the specific resource type, and 'DUID' might be an unfamiliar term to some agents.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this should be called versus other 'get_' tools, or what context makes it appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the default status DUIDs
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
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 states 'Get' implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, structure). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'default status DUIDs' are, how they're used, or what the return value includes, making it inadequate for a tool that likely returns data without further context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but that's appropriate here, warranting a baseline score above minimum viable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Get') and the resource ('default status DUIDs'), but it's vague about what 'default status DUIDs' are or what this tool specifically does with them. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_default_space' or 'get_dartboards' beyond the resource name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with siblings like 'get_default_space', there's no indication of how this differs or when one should be chosen over the other.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get available folders
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| space_duid | Yes | Space DUID to get folders from |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get available folders' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify permissions needed, whether it returns all folders or a subset, pagination behavior, or error conditions. The description lacks critical behavioral context for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, which is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could benefit from slightly more detail to improve clarity without sacrificing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns folder data. It doesn't explain what 'available' means, what data is returned, or how results are structured. For a retrieval tool with zero structured support, the description should provide more context about behavior and outputs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'space_duid' documented in the schema as 'Space DUID to get folders from'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate but minimal value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get available folders' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('folders'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from potential siblings. It doesn't specify whether this retrieves all folders, user-accessible folders, or folders with specific characteristics, leaving the purpose somewhat ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'create_folder' and 'get_dartboards', there's no indication of whether this is for listing folders versus creating them, or how it relates to other retrieval tools. No context about prerequisites or exclusions is mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Update an existing task
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| duid | Yes | DUID of the task to update | |
| status_duid | No | New status DUID | |
| title | No | New title for the task | |
| description | No | New description for the task | |
| priority | No | New priority for the task |
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. 'Update an existing task' implies a mutation operation but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 5 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values, leaving critical gaps for the agent to understand the tool fully.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting all 5 parameters clearly with descriptions and an enum for 'priority'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update an existing task' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('task'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'create_task' or provide any specificity about what aspects of a task can be updated, making it somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_task' or other update-related tools that might exist. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
create_doccreate_foldercreate_spacecreate_taskdelete_spaceget_dartboardsget_default_spaceget_default_statusget_foldersupdate_taskScored across 10 tools
Most tools have distinct purposes focused on different resources (documents, folders, spaces, tasks, dartboards), but 'create_doc' and 'create_folder' could be confused if a document is stored in a folder, though their descriptions clarify separate actions. No direct functional overlap exists between other tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., create_doc, get_dartboards, update_task). The naming is predictable and uniform across all 10 tools, making it easy for agents to understand the action and target.
With 10 tools, the count is well-scoped for a Dart MCP server, covering core operations like creation, retrieval, update, and deletion. Each tool appears to serve a specific purpose without redundancy, fitting typical server scope of 3-15 tools.
The toolset covers creation and retrieval for documents, folders, spaces, and tasks, with update for tasks and delete for spaces, but lacks update/delete for documents and folders, and retrieval for tasks and documents. This creates notable gaps in CRUD coverage, though agents might work around them with available tools.
Nifty's MCP server — exposes tasks, projects, messages, and files as tools for AI agents.
Work management where AI agents are first-class members: tasks, projects, memory over hosted MCP
MCP server enabling AI agents to manage Bitrix24 features via standardized protocol
DocBase MCP server for AI agents
