Add a dashboard or documentation link to a project by specifying its project ID, name, and URL.
Add a reference (an important link, like a dashboard or a doc) to a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | http or https URL | |
| name | Yes | Name of the reference | |
| project_id | Yes | Project id, from list_projects |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Add' implies a mutation, but nothing is said about permissions, duplicate-link handling, URL validation failures, or whether the created reference is returned — all material for a write operation with zero 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?
A single tight sentence with the resource and its examples front-loaded; nothing is redundant or wasted.
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?
All three required parameters are documented in the schema and there is no output schema to explain, but for an unannotated mutation the description omits what a successful call produces and how failures (bad URL, unknown project) are surfaced.
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 url, name, and project_id all documented (project_id even points at list_projects). The description adds only the notion of 'reference' and does not elaborate on any parameter, so baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb (add) and resource (a reference / important link) and clarifies with concrete examples (dashboard, doc), so an agent understands exactly what is created. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like add_note or add_meeting, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus add_note, add_meeting, or add_todo_action, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The examples hint at the kind of content that qualifies, but selection guidance is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.