Collect distinct assigned and author values from task files to identify every contributor. Use this to inventory or validate contributor names across the project.
Collect every distinct assigned/author value in use across task files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Path to the project root directory |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The wording implies a non-destructive scan because it says 'collect' and 'in use across task files,' which is useful behavioral context. However, with no annotations, the description does not explicitly confirm that no files are modified, how task files are discovered, or how failures are handled, so the burden is only partially met.
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 one concise sentence with no filler, and the core behavior is front-loaded. Every element earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple and the path parameter is covered by the schema, but with no output schema or annotations the description should say more about what the returned value looks like and what happens when path is omitted. It is adequate for basic invocation but leaves some operational ambiguity.
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 already documents the 'path' parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. The description mentions 'task files' but does not add detail about the path's default, format, or relation to the project root beyond what the schema already provides.
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 a specific verb ('Collect') and resource ('distinct assigned/author value in use across task files'), making the action clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like kanbn_get_contributors or kanbn_find_contributor, so it stops short of a 5.
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 sentence explains when to use this tool instead of kanbn_get_contributors, kanbn_find_contributor, or kanbn_contributor_usage. The intended use case must be inferred entirely from the tool name and one-line description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.