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 effectively communicates that this is a read operation (lists contexts) and provides workflow context about what to do next. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond just the operation type.

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 and well-structured. It starts with the core purpose, provides essential clarification about what's being listed, and then gives actionable next steps. Every sentence earns its place by providing critical information for tool selection and workflow integration.

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 this is a simple read operation with 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, provides clear usage guidelines, and integrates it into a larger workflow. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, but it does provide context about the tool's role in a workflow. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds workflow semantics that enhance understanding.

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 tool's purpose: 'Lists active task contexts' with the specific clarification that these are 'reusable task TYPES, not task instances.' This distinguishes it from potential sibling tools that might handle task instances. The description goes beyond just restating the name by explaining what kind of entities are being listed.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Start here for every task') and offers clear alternatives for next steps based on the outcome: 'If a context matches: call get_artifacts_for_task_context(task_context_id)' and 'If no context matches: call create_task_context(summary, description).' This gives the agent specific decision logic for tool selection.

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