Google Sheets Kanban 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 discloses that it returns a list of dictionaries for found tasks and that unfound/errored tasks return an object with an 'error' field, which is useful behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'busca' but not explicit), authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling details, or pagination. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by structured sections for Args, Returns, and an Example. Each section adds value without redundancy. However, the example could be more concise by omitting redundant parameter names if they're obvious from context, and the overall structure is slightly verbose but still efficient.

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 has an output schema (which should document return values), the description doesn't need to explain return details extensively. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides basic purpose, parameter semantics, and an example, but lacks context on error handling, authentication, and usage comparisons. For a tool with 2 parameters and sibling tools, this is adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics: 'project' is described as 'Nome do Projeto' (Project Name) and 'task_id_list' as 'Lista de IDs únicos das tarefas' (List of unique task IDs). This clarifies what each parameter represents beyond the schema's basic types. However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., project name patterns or ID formats), so it doesn't fully compensate for the 0% coverage gap.

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: 'Busca uma ou mais tarefas específicas pelos IDs das tarefas e projeto' (Searches for one or more specific tasks by task IDs and project). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_tasks' (which presumably lists all tasks without filtering by IDs). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_sprint_stats' or 'get_valid_configs', so it's not fully differentiated from all siblings.

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 implies usage context by specifying that it searches by task IDs and project, suggesting it should be used when you have specific task IDs to retrieve. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_tasks' (which might retrieve all tasks without ID filtering) or when not to use it. The example shows usage but doesn't provide comparative guidance.

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