Task Context MCP Server

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 implies a destructive action ('Archive') but doesn't specify if it's reversible, what permissions are needed, or how it affects related data. It adds some context by recommending a reason, but lacks details on behavioral traits like side effects or error handling.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by two concise guidelines. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the tool's purpose and usage well, but as a mutation tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral details like permanence or access requirements to be fully complete.

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 both parameters ('artifact_id' and 'reason'). The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'Provide a reason when possible,' which aligns with the schema but doesn't elaborate on format or implications beyond what's in the structured data.

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action ('Archive') and resource ('an artifact'), specifying it targets artifacts that are 'incorrect, misleading, or outdated.' This distinguishes it from siblings like 'update_artifact' or 'create_artifact' by focusing on removal from active use rather than modification or creation.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use it: 'Prefer creating a replacement first, then archive the old artifact.' This offers a clear alternative workflow and context for usage, helping differentiate from other tools like 'update_artifact' or 'reflect_and_update_artifacts.'

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.