Record a project meeting on its timeline, capturing what was discussed and decided so the project history stays complete.
Record a meeting on the timeline of a project: what was discussed and decided.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Day it took place, YYYY-MM-DD (default: today) | |
| title | No | Short title of the meeting | |
| project_id | Yes | Project id, from list_projects | |
| description | Yes | What happened in the meeting |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 implies a write operation to a project timeline but does not describe side effects, permanence, permissions, or what happens on success.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It communicates the action, target, and content scope 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 simple create-style tool with fully described parameters, the description is adequate for invocation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should do more to explain the mutation's behavioral implications and expected result.
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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds only a general sense of the meeting content and does not provide parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already supplies.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Record a meeting on the timeline of a project.' It also clarifies the content scope as 'what was discussed and decided.' It is clearly distinct from purely note-like or todo-like siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 states what the tool does but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not say when to choose it over add_note, add_todo_action, or add_important_link.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.