Predict when tasks will be completed by analyzing current velocity, helping you plan sprints and manage backlog timelines.
Generate forecast for when tasks will be completed based on current velocity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Forecast for a specific category |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full behavioral burden. It only implies a read/forecast operation and doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it depends on velocity data being pre-populated, or the time horizon of the forecast. Minimal 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?
A single efficient sentence with the purpose front-loaded. No waste, though it is short enough that it could have included a routing hint without sacrificing conciseness.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is sparse. It doesn't explain the forecast output granularity, the data source ('current velocity' implies dependency on velocity), or how it relates to siblings like get_projections — leaving meaningful gaps.
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 coverage is 100%, so the single 'category' enum parameter is already fully documented in the schema (coding/job_search/business). The description adds essentially no parameter meaning beyond the schema baseline, which warrants a 3.
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?
States a specific verb ('Generate forecast') and resource ('when tasks will be completed') — an agent can tell this is a forecasting tool distinct from task CRUD siblings. It doesn't explicitly name or distinguish from the closest sibling 'get_projections', leaving some ambiguity.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. Notably, 'get_projections' is a sibling that may serve a similar forecasting purpose, yet the description never routes the agent. No prerequisites or preconditions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.