Dart 用のモデル コンテキスト プロトコル (MCP) サーバー実装。MCP ツールを通じてタスク管理、ドキュメント処理、ワークスペース編成機能を提供します。
Node.js 16.x 以上
Python 3.8以上
Dart Python SDK がインストールされている ( pip install dart-sdk )
有効なDart APIトークン
Related MCP server: Dart MCP Server
タスク管理
タスクの作成と更新
タスクの優先順位とステータスを設定する
チームメンバーにタスクを割り当てる
ドキュメント管理
ドキュメントの作成と整理
マークダウンコンテンツのサポート
レポート生成
スペース管理
ワークスペースの作成と管理
フォルダでコンテンツを整理する
アクセス権限を制御する
ダーツボード統合
デフォルトステータス管理
タスクの組織化
チームコラボレーション
Smithery経由で Claude Desktop 用の Dart MCP Server を自動的にインストールするには:
npx -y @smithery/cli install @jmanhype/dart-mcp-server --client claudeリポジトリをクローンします。
git clone https://github.com/jmanhype/dart-mcp-server.git
cd dart-mcp-serverNode.js の依存関係をインストールします。
npm installPython 環境をセットアップし、Dart SDK をインストールします。
# Create and activate virtual environment
python -m venv .venv
source .venv/bin/activate # On Windows: .venv\Scripts\activate
# Install Dart SDK
pip install dart-sdk環境変数を設定します。
# Copy example environment file
cp .env.example .env
# Edit .env with your configuration
# Required: DART_TOKEN
# Optional: PYTHONPATH (path to dart sdk)TypeScript コードをビルドします。
npm run buildMCP サーバーを起動します。
npm start# Watch for TypeScript changes
npm run dev
# Run tests
npm test次の変数を含む.envファイルを作成します。
# 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 : タイトル、説明、優先度などを指定して新しいタスクを作成します。
update_task : 既存のタスクのステータス、タイトル、説明を更新する
get_default_status : デフォルトステータスのDUIDを取得する
get_default_space : デフォルトスペースのDUIDを取得する
get_dartboards : 利用可能なダーツボードを一覧表示する
get_folders : スペース内のフォルダを一覧表示する
create_folder : 新しいフォルダを作成する
create_doc : 新しいドキュメントまたはレポートを作成する
create_space : 新しいワークスペースを作成する
delete_space : 既存のワークスペースを削除する
問題が発生した場合:
Python 環境を確認します。
python --version
pip list | grep dartDart SDK のインストールを確認します。
python -c "import dart; print(dart.__version__)"環境変数を確認します。
echo $DART_TOKEN
echo $PYTHONPATHMITライセンス
PyPI がサポートする Python バージョン ライセンス
Dart は AI を活用したプロジェクト管理です。
dart-toolsはDart CLIとPythonライブラリです。ターミナルCLIまたはPython経由でDartと直接統合できます。
インストール
CLIの使用
Pythonライブラリの使用
AWS Lambda関数でPythonライブラリを使用する
MCPサーバーの使用
高度な使用法
ヘルプとリソース
貢献
ライセンス
ターミナルで以下を実行してインストールします。
pip install dart-toolsまずは認証の設定から始めましょう
dart login次に、次のようなコマンドで新しいタスクを作成します。
dart createtask "Update the landing page" -p0 --tag marketingこれにより、「ランディング ページを更新する」という新しいタスクが作成され、優先度は「クリティカル」(つまり P0)、タグは「マーケティング」になります。
これらすべてのオプションとその他多くのオプションについては、 dart --helpまたはサブコマンドのより具体的なヘルプ (この場合はdart createtask --helpで調べることができます。
もう一つの一般的なワークフローは、既存のタスクを更新することです。これを行うには、次のようなコマンドを実行します。
dart updatetask [DUID] -s Doneこのコマンドは、参照されているタスクを「完了」にします。ここで、 [DUID]は（括弧を含む）既存のタスクの「Dart ID」に置き換えてください。既存のタスクからDUIDを取得するには、タスクのURLの末尾からコピーしたり、Dartのタスクページで「…」ボタンをクリックして「IDをコピー」を選択したりするなど、いくつかの方法があります。
まず、認証を設定します。対話型プロセスの場合はターミナルでdart loginを実行するか、Dartプロファイルにアクセスしてdart.login(token)を実行するか、トークンをDART_TOKEN環境変数に保存します。
そして、次のようなものを実行します。
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")モデルコンテキストプロトコル（MCP）サーバー実装により、AIアシスタント（Claudeなど）は標準化されたツールを介してDartと対話できるようになります。これにより、AI機能とDartのタスク管理システムをシームレスに統合できます。
# 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_TOKENサーバーは次の MCP ツールを提供します。
タスク管理（タスクの作成/更新）
ドキュメント管理（ドキュメントの作成/整理）
スペース管理（ワークスペース/フォルダ）
ダーツボード統合
詳細なドキュメントについては、 MCP Server README を参照してください。
DartでできることはほぼすべてPythonライブラリでもできますが、全てに対応する便利なラッパー関数は存在しません。高度な使い方をご希望の場合は、お気軽にお問い合わせください。サポートさせていただきます。
ただし、ご自身で試してみたい場合は、クライアントは型付けがしっかりしているので、コードを調べて何ができるか確認するだけで十分です。すべての更新はdart.transact関数を介して行われます。
例えば、 update_taskに似たものを次のように実行することができます。
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)ホームページ
ウェブアプリ
ヘルプセンター
バグと機能
ライブラリソース
Discordでチャット
support@itsdart.comまでメールでお問い合わせください
貢献を歓迎します！問題を報告したり、プルリクエストを送信してください。
このプロジェクトは MIT ライセンスに基づいてライセンスされています。
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
