Un servidor de Protocolo de Contexto de Modelo (MCP) que permite a los agentes de IA dividir tareas complejas en partes manejables utilizando un formato JSON estructurado.
Related MCP server: Task Manager MCP
El servidor MCP Divide and Conquer es una evolución del servidor MCP Temp Notes, diseñado específicamente para tareas complejas que requieren desglosarse en partes manejables. En lugar de usar un simple archivo de texto, este servidor utiliza un formato JSON estructurado para almacenar información de tareas, listas de verificación y contexto, lo que facilita el seguimiento del progreso y el mantenimiento del contexto en múltiples conversaciones.
Formato JSON estructurado : en lugar de texto simple, utiliza una estructura JSON para almacenar información de la tarea
Seguimiento de tareas : incluye funcionalidad de lista de verificación con seguimiento del estado de finalización
Preservación del contexto : campos dedicados para el contexto de la tarea y descripciones detalladas
Monitoreo del progreso : fácil visualización de tareas completadas y pendientes
Ordenamiento de tareas : Mantiene el orden de las tareas para su ejecución secuencial.
Inserción de tareas : Capacidad de insertar nuevas tareas en posiciones específicas en la lista de verificación
Metadatos : rastrea información adicional como etiquetas, prioridad y tiempo de finalización estimado
Notas y recursos : almacene notas y recursos adicionales relacionados con la tarea
Agregue el servidor a su configuración de MCP:
{
"mcpServers": {
"divide-and-conquer": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@landicefu/divide-and-conquer-mcp-server"],
"disabled": false
}
}
}Empieza a usarlo en tus conversaciones:
// Initialize a new task
await use_mcp_tool({
server_name: "divide-and-conquer",
tool_name: "initialize_task",
arguments: {
task_description: "Refactor the authentication system",
context_for_all_tasks: "The current system uses session-based authentication."
}
});
// Add checklist items
await use_mcp_tool({
server_name: "divide-and-conquer",
tool_name: "add_checklist_item",
arguments: {
task: "Analyze current authentication flow",
detailed_description: "Review the existing authentication code.",
context_and_plan: "Look at src/auth/* files. The current implementation uses express-session with MongoDB store."
}
});Agregue el servidor a su configuración de MCP:
{
"mcpServers": {
"divide-and-conquer": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@landicefu/divide-and-conquer-mcp-server"],
"disabled": false
}
}
}Clonar el repositorio:
git clone https://github.com/landicefu/divide-and-conquer-mcp-server.git
cd divide-and-conquer-mcp-serverInstalar dependencias:
npm installConstruir el servidor:
npm run buildAgregue el servidor a su configuración de MCP:
{
"mcpServers": {
"divide-and-conquer": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/path/to/divide-and-conquer-mcp-server/build/index.js"],
"disabled": false
}
}
}El servidor MCP Divide and Conquer proporciona las siguientes herramientas:
initialize_taskCrea una nueva tarea con la descripción especificada y elementos de lista de verificación iniciales opcionales.
update_task_descriptionActualiza la descripción de la tarea principal.
update_contextActualiza la información de contexto para todas las tareas.
add_checklist_itemAgrega un nuevo elemento a la lista de verificación.
update_checklist_itemActualiza un elemento de la lista de verificación existente.
mark_task_doneMarca un elemento de la lista de verificación como realizado.
mark_task_undoneMarca un elemento de la lista de verificación como no realizado.
remove_checklist_itemElimina un elemento de la lista de verificación.
reorder_checklist_itemMueve un elemento de la lista de verificación a una nueva posición.
add_noteAgrega una nota a la tarea.
add_resourceAgrega un recurso a la tarea.
update_metadataActualiza los metadatos de la tarea.
clear_taskBorra los datos de la tarea actual.
get_checklist_summaryDevuelve un resumen de la lista de verificación con el estado de finalización. La información de contexto se excluye intencionalmente del resumen para ahorrar espacio en la ventana de contexto.
get_current_task_detailsRecupera los detalles de la tarea actual (primera tarea incompleta) con contexto completo, junto con todas las demás tareas con campos limitados. Para la tarea actual, se incluyen todos los campos, incluyendo context_and_plan. Para las demás tareas, solo se incluyen task, detailed_description y complete status (context_and_plan se excluye). Esta es la herramienta recomendada para trabajar con tareas.
await use_mcp_tool({
server_name: "divide-and-conquer",
tool_name: "initialize_task",
arguments: {
task_description: "Refactor the authentication system to use JWT tokens and improve security",
context_for_all_tasks: "The current system uses session-based authentication with cookies. We need to migrate to JWT for better scalability and security.",
initial_checklist: [
{
task: "Analyze current authentication flow",
detailed_description: "Review the existing authentication code to understand the current flow.",
context_and_plan: "Look at src/auth/* files. The current implementation uses express-session with MongoDB store. Pay special attention to session expiration handling."
},
{
task: "Design JWT implementation",
detailed_description: "Create a design document outlining how JWT will be implemented.",
context_and_plan: "Consider token structure, storage, and refresh mechanisms. Research best practices for JWT implementation in Node.js applications. Reference the security requirements document in docs/security.md."
}
],
metadata: {
tags: ["security", "refactoring", "authentication"],
priority: "high",
estimated_completion_time: "2 weeks"
}
}
});const summary = await use_mcp_tool({
server_name: "divide-and-conquer",
tool_name: "get_checklist_summary",
arguments: {
include_descriptions: true
}
});
// Result contains a formatted summary of the checklist with completion status (context is excluded to save space)const taskDetails = await use_mcp_tool({
server_name: "divide-and-conquer",
tool_name: "get_current_task_details",
arguments: {}
});
// Result contains:
// - ultimate_goal: The final goal of the entire task (task_description)
// - tasks: Array of all tasks, where the current task (first uncompleted) has all fields including context_and_plan,
// while other tasks have limited fields (task, detailed_description, done) without context_and_plan
// - current_task_index: Index of the current task (first uncompleted)
// - Additional task metadata, notes, resources, etc.Al trabajar en tareas complejas de desarrollo de software, los agentes de IA suelen encontrarse con limitaciones en la ventana de contexto que dificultan completar todos los pasos en una sola conversación. El servidor MCP Divide and Conquer permite a los agentes:
Divida las tareas grandes en partes más pequeñas y manejables
Realizar un seguimiento del progreso en múltiples conversaciones
Mantener un contexto importante que de otro modo se perdería
Organizar las tareas en una secuencia lógica
Documentar decisiones y recursos
Para las tareas de planificación y gestión de proyectos, el servidor permite:
Creación de planes de proyecto estructurados con tareas y subtareas
Seguimiento del progreso y el estado de finalización
Mantener el contexto y los requisitos
Documentar decisiones y recursos
Colaborar en múltiples conversaciones
Al realizar investigaciones y análisis, los agentes pueden:
Dividir las preguntas de investigación en áreas específicas para investigar
Seguimiento del progreso y los hallazgos
Mantener el contexto y la información de fondo
Fuentes y recursos de documentos
Organizar los hallazgos de forma estructurada
El servidor utiliza la siguiente estructura JSON para almacenar información de tareas:
{
"task_description": "A medium-level detailed description about the whole task. The final goal we want to achieve.",
"checklist": [
{
"done": false,
"task": "A short yet comprehensive name for the task",
"detailed_description": "A longer description about what we want to achieve with this task",
"context_and_plan": "Related information, files the agent should read, and more details from other tasks, as well as a detailed plan for this task. This is typically the longest string."
}
],
"context_for_all_tasks": "Information that all tasks in the checklist should include.",
"metadata": {
"created_at": "ISO timestamp",
"updated_at": "ISO timestamp",
"progress": {
"completed": 0,
"total": 1,
"percentage": 0
},
"tags": ["tag1", "tag2"],
"priority": "high|medium|low",
"estimated_completion_time": "ISO timestamp or duration"
},
"notes": [
{
"timestamp": "ISO timestamp",
"content": "Additional notes or observations about the overall task"
}
],
"resources": [
{
"name": "Resource name",
"url": "URL or file path",
"description": "Description of the resource"
}
]
}De forma predeterminada, el servidor MCP Divide and Conquer almacena datos de tareas en la siguiente ubicación:
En macOS/Linux: ~/.mcp_config/divide_and_conquer.json (que se expande a /Users/username/.mcp_config/divide_and_conquer.json )
En Windows: C:\Users\username\.mcp_config\divide_and_conquer.json
Este archivo se crea automáticamente al inicializar una tarea. Si el archivo no existe al intentar leer los datos de la tarea, el servidor devolverá una estructura de tarea vacía y creará el archivo la próxima vez que escriba en él.
El servidor maneja los siguientes escenarios:
Si el archivo no existe al leer: Devuelve una estructura de tarea vacía
Si el directorio no existe: Crea la estructura del directorio automáticamente al escribir
Si el archivo está dañado o es inaccesible: devuelve los mensajes de error apropiados
¡Agradecemos sus contribuciones! No dude en enviar una solicitud de incorporación de cambios.
Este proyecto está licenciado bajo la licencia MIT: consulte el archivo de LICENCIA para obtener más detalles.
Adds a new item to the checklist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | A short yet comprehensive name for the task | |
| detailed_description | Yes | A longer description about what we want to achieve with this task | |
| context_and_plan | No | Related information, files the agent should read, and more details from other tasks, as well as a detailed plan for this task | |
| done | No | Whether the task is already completed | |
| position | No | Optional position to insert the task (0-based index). If not provided, the task will be added at the end. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Adds' implies a write/mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on duplicate items, whether the addition is immediate or queued, or what confirmation/error responses look like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.
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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and front-loads the essential information immediately.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address important contextual aspects like what happens after addition (e.g., returns new item ID, confirmation message, or nothing), error conditions, or how this interacts with the broader checklist system. The description should provide more operational context given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
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 ('Adds') and target resource ('new item to the checklist'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar siblings like 'update_checklist_item' or 'reorder_checklist_item', which would require more specific language about creating versus modifying existing items.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'update_checklist_item' for modifying items and 'reorder_checklist_item' for changing positions, there's no indication of when creation is appropriate versus updating, or whether this should be used for initial checklist setup versus ongoing additions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Adds a note to the task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | The content of the note |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Adds a note' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, side effects (e.g., if it updates timestamps), or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information ('Adds a note to the task'). Every word 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?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after adding (e.g., success confirmation, error responses), how notes relate to the task lifecycle, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that modifies state, more context is needed to use it effectively.
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 description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which has 100% coverage with a clear description for the single 'content' parameter. Since schema_description_coverage is high, the baseline is 3 even without additional param details in the description. The description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.
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 ('Adds') and target resource ('a note to the task'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_checklist_item' or 'add_resource' by specifying 'note' rather than other task components. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, missing a perfect score.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing task), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'update_context' or 'update_task_description'. Without such context, an agent might struggle with tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Adds a resource to the task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the resource | |
| url | Yes | URL or file path of the resource | |
| description | No | Description of the resource |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Adds a resource to the task', implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or how it affects task state. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely modifies data.
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, efficient sentence: 'Adds a resource to the task.' It's front-loaded with the core action, has zero waste, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every word earns its place without redundancy.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what a 'resource' is, how it integrates with the task, return values, or error cases. For a tool that likely changes state, this minimal description is inadequate for safe and effective use.
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 clear descriptions for 'name', 'url', and 'description' parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter relationships, constraints, or usage examples. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is provided.
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 'Adds a resource to the task' states a clear verb ('Adds') and resource ('resource'), but it's vague about what a 'resource' entails (e.g., file, link, document) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'add_note' or 'add_checklist_item', which also add items to tasks. It avoids tautology by not restating the name 'add_resource' directly.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an initialized task), exclusions, or how it differs from similar tools like 'add_note' or 'update_metadata'. The description implies usage for adding resources but offers no context for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Clears the current task data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Clears' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what exactly gets cleared (e.g., checklist items, notes, metadata), or if it requires confirmation. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without any structural issues.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'clearing' entails, what data is affected, whether it's permanent, or what happens after execution. Given the complexity of task management and rich sibling tools, more context is needed.
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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information.
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 ('clears') and the resource ('current task data'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'mark_task_done' or 'update_task_description' which also modify task state, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'mark_task_done', 'update_task_description', and 'initialize_task' that also affect task state, the description offers no context about prerequisites, timing, or what 'clearing' entails compared to other modifications.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Returns a summary of the checklist with completion status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_descriptions | No | Whether to include detailed descriptions in the summary |
Does 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 mentions 'completion status' but doesn't explain what that entails (e.g., percentages, counts, or detailed breakdowns), nor does it cover potential side effects, error conditions, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely returns structured data.
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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the parameter's role, but overall it's concise and effective.
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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't specify what the summary includes beyond 'completion status' (e.g., item counts, metadata), nor does it address how results are formatted or potential limitations. For a tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves too much ambiguity for reliable agent use.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'include_descriptions' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced coverage.
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 with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('summary of the checklist'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_current_task_details' or 'update_metadata', which might also provide checklist-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_current_task_details' that might overlap in functionality, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Retrieves details of the current task (first uncompleted task) with full context. This is the recommended tool to use when working with tasks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions retrieving 'full context' but doesn't disclose what that includes (e.g., checklist items, notes, metadata), whether it's a read-only operation (implied but not stated), or any behavioral traits like permissions needed or rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.
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 two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, and the second provides usage guidance. It's front-loaded with essential information and appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and low complexity (0 parameters), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks details on return values (e.g., what 'full context' includes) and behavioral traits. For a read operation with no structured output documentation, this is minimally viable but incomplete.
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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and a baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool where the schema fully covers the input structure.
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 specific action ('Retrieves details') and resource ('current task'), with additional context about scope ('first uncompleted task' and 'full context'). It effectively distinguishes this read operation from sibling tools that modify tasks (e.g., mark_task_done, update_task_description).
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 explicitly states 'This is the recommended tool to use when working with tasks,' providing clear guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It positions this as the primary tool for task context retrieval, though it doesn't specify when not to use it or name specific alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Creates a new task with the specified description and optional initial checklist items.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_description | Yes | A medium-level detailed description about the whole task | |
| context_for_all_tasks | No | Information that all tasks in the checklist should include | |
| initial_checklist | No | Optional initial checklist items | |
| metadata | No | Optional metadata for the task |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it correctly identifies this as a creation operation ('Creates'), it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if a task with the same description already exists, whether the task is immediately active or in draft state, or what the response looks like. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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 perfectly concise and well-structured: a single sentence that clearly states the core functionality. Every word earns its place - 'Creates' (verb), 'new task' (resource), 'specified description' (primary parameter), and 'optional initial checklist items' (secondary functionality). There's no wasted language or redundancy.
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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what happens after creation (e.g., does it return a task ID?), error conditions, or how this tool relates to the ecosystem of 14 sibling tools. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior in the broader task management context, making this description inadequate for confident tool selection and invocation.
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 description mentions 'specified description and optional initial checklist items,' which maps to two of the four parameters. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain the relationship between parameters or provide usage examples. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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: 'Creates a new task with the specified description and optional initial checklist items.' It includes a specific verb ('Creates') and resource ('new task'), and mentions key parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_checklist_item' or 'update_task_description', which could create ambiguity about when to use this tool versus others for task-related operations.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 14 sibling tools available (including 'add_checklist_item', 'update_task_description', etc.), there's no indication whether this is the primary creation tool or if it should be used only for specific scenarios. The description mentions 'optional initial checklist items' but doesn't explain when to include them versus using 'add_checklist_item' later.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Marks a checklist item as done.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | Yes | The index of the checklist item to mark as done (0-based) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'marks...done' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it triggers side effects, or what happens if the index is invalid. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
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, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and gets straight to the point with no unnecessary elaboration.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'done' means in this context, what the expected outcome is, or how this interacts with other checklist operations. Given the tool's role in a task management system with multiple sibling tools, more contextual information would be helpful.
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 the single parameter 'index' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'checklist item' refers to or provide examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.
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 ('marks') and target ('checklist item as done'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'mark_task_undone', but the verb 'marks...done' provides inherent distinction. The description avoids tautology by not just restating the tool name.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'clear_task' or 'mark_task_undone'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a task must be initialized first) or contextual constraints. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Marks a checklist item as not done.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | Yes | The index of the checklist item to mark as not done (0-based) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the mutation action ('marks') but doesn't describe side effects (e.g., whether this triggers notifications, updates timestamps, or affects task completion status), error conditions, or response format. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, or behavioral implications. Given the sibling tools include multiple checklist operations, more context about how this fits into the workflow is needed.
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 a single well-documented parameter ('index'), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what happens if the index is invalid or out of bounds).
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 ('marks') and the resource ('checklist item') with the specific state change ('as not done'). It distinguishes from 'mark_task_done' by specifying the opposite state, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other checklist-related tools like 'clear_task' or 'update_checklist_item'.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mark_task_done', 'clear_task', or 'update_checklist_item'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that the item must exist or be currently marked as done) or contextual constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Removes a checklist item.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | Yes | The index of the checklist item to remove (0-based) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Removes' implies a destructive mutation, but there's no information about whether this requires specific permissions, whether the removal is permanent or reversible, what happens to checklist indices after removal, or what the response looks like. The description doesn't compensate for the lack of annotations.
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 maximally concise - a single sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permanence, error conditions, or response format. Given the complexity of checklist manipulation and multiple sibling alternatives, more context about when and how to use this specific tool would be valuable.
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 the single parameter 'index' fully documented in the schema as 'The index of the checklist item to remove (0-based)'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
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 ('removes') and target ('checklist item'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'clear_task' or 'reorder_checklist_item' that also modify checklists, missing the opportunity to clarify its specific scope within the checklist management domain.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools that manipulate checklists (add_checklist_item, reorder_checklist_item, update_checklist_item, clear_task), there's no indication of when removal is appropriate versus clearing or updating. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Moves a checklist item to a new position.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| from_index | Yes | The current index of the checklist item (0-based) | |
| to_index | Yes | The new index for the checklist item (0-based) |
Does 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 states the action ('moves') but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, how it handles invalid indices (e.g., out-of-bounds), if it affects other items' positions, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Moves a checklist item') and avoids redundancy. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clearly conveying the essential function.
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 the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, side effects), usage context, and return values. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient, especially for a tool that modifies data.
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 description implies positional parameters but doesn't add meaning beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for 'from_index' and 'to_index' as 0-based indices. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate with additional context like index validation or effects on other items.
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 verb ('moves') and resource ('checklist item') with the specific action of repositioning ('to a new position'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'remove_checklist_item' or 'update_checklist_item' by focusing on positional changes rather than deletion or content modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'clear_task' might also affect ordering), keeping it from a perfect score.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing checklist), exclusions (e.g., invalid indices), or related tools like 'update_checklist_item' for non-positional changes. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Updates an existing checklist item.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | Yes | The index of the checklist item to update (0-based) | |
| task | No | A short yet comprehensive name for the task | |
| detailed_description | No | A longer description about what we want to achieve with this task | |
| context_and_plan | No | Related information, files the agent should read, and more details from other tasks, as well as a detailed plan for this task | |
| done | No | Whether the task is completed |
Does 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. 'Updates' implies a mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or the expected response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unaddressed.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and easy to parse, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity (e.g., by hinting at updatable fields).
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 the complexity of a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, side effects, or return values, and it lacks usage guidelines. While the schema handles parameter documentation well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient.
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 description coverage is 100%, with all 5 parameters clearly documented in the input schema (e.g., 'index' as 0-based, 'task' as a short name). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'Updates an existing checklist item' clearly states the verb ('Updates') and resource ('checklist item'), which is better than a tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what aspects can be updated and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_task_description' or 'update_metadata', which could also involve modifications to related entities.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing checklist item), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'mark_task_done' (which might overlap with the 'done' parameter) or 'remove_checklist_item' (for deletion). Without such context, an agent might struggle to select the appropriate tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Updates the context information for all tasks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context_for_all_tasks | Yes | The new context information for all tasks |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation but doesn't specify whether this affects all tasks globally, requires special permissions, is reversible, or has side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.
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, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and gets straight to the point with zero wasted text.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'context information' means, how it differs from metadata or task descriptions, what the update affects, or what happens after invocation. Given the complexity implied by affecting 'all tasks', more context is needed.
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 parameter 'context_for_all_tasks' is already documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameter's format, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 verb ('Updates') and resource ('context information for all tasks'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_metadata' or 'update_task_description' which also update aspects of tasks, leaving some ambiguity about scope boundaries.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_metadata' or 'update_task_description'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Updates the task metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | Tags to categorize the task | |
| priority | No | Priority level of the task | |
| estimated_completion_time | No | Estimated completion time (ISO timestamp or duration) |
Does 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. 'Updates' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention permissions required, whether changes are reversible, side effects, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies task data.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Updates'), making it immediately clear. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness for the minimal information provided.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, idempotency), doesn't clarify the relationship with sibling update tools, and provides minimal context beyond the basic purpose. This is inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
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 clear descriptions for all three parameters (tags, priority, estimated_completion_time). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how these fields relate to 'metadata' or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'Updates the task metadata' clearly states the verb ('Updates') and resource ('task metadata'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specify what constitutes 'metadata' or distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_task_description' or 'update_context', leaving room for ambiguity about scope.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'update_task_description', 'update_context', and 'mark_task_done', there's no indication of whether this tool is for specific metadata fields or general updates, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Updates the main task description.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_description | Yes | The new task description |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'updates' without disclosing behavioral traits such as permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, or how it interacts with other task operations. It lacks details on mutation effects, error conditions, or response format.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'updates' entails (e.g., overwrites or merges), potential side effects, or return values, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.
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 the parameter 'task_description' documented as 'The new task description'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't elaborate on format, constraints, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'Updates the main task description' clearly states the action (updates) and target (main task description), but it's somewhat vague about what constitutes the 'main' description versus other task-related fields. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_checklist_item' or 'update_metadata' by focusing on description, but could be more specific about scope.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_metadata' or 'update_context', nor any prerequisites (e.g., requires an existing task). The description implies usage for modifying descriptions but offers no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
add_checklist_itemadd_noteadd_resourceclear_taskget_checklist_summaryget_current_task_detailsinitialize_taskmark_task_donemark_task_undoneremove_checklist_itemreorder_checklist_itemupdate_checklist_itemupdate_contextupdate_metadataupdate_task_descriptionScored across 15 tools
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes focused on specific operations like adding, removing, updating, or retrieving task and checklist data. However, some potential overlap exists between 'update_checklist_item' and 'mark_task_done/undone', as marking could be seen as a type of update, but the descriptions help clarify their specific intents.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case, such as 'add_checklist_item', 'get_current_task_details', and 'update_task_description'. This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy to navigate, with no deviations in naming style.
With 15 tools, this server is well-scoped for its task management domain, covering a comprehensive range of operations from initialization to updates and retrieval. Each tool appears to earn its place by addressing specific aspects of task handling without feeling excessive or sparse.
The tool set provides complete CRUD/lifecycle coverage for task and checklist management, including creation (initialize_task), retrieval (get_current_task_details, get_checklist_summary), updates (update_task_description, update_checklist_item), and deletion (remove_checklist_item, clear_task). There are no obvious gaps, supporting full agent workflows without dead ends.
AI-native task management: list, create, update and archive tasks with rich context for AI agents
Task management for teams building with AI agents. Agents claim tasks and report progress.
AI-powered spec-to-task decomposition and execution orchestration for coding agents.
Persistent work tracking for AI agents: tasks, status and history that follow you across machines
