Google Sheets Kanban MCP Server

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. It implies a read-only operation by using 'returns' and describes the output structure, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling. This is adequate for a simple lookup tool but misses deeper 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 highly concise and well-structured: it states the purpose in one sentence and details the return format in a clear, bulleted list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and the return structure, though it could benefit from more behavioral context. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for detailed output explanation.

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 the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description does not add parameter information, but since no parameters exist, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as no compensation is needed.

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: 'Retorna as configurações válidas para Status e Prioridade' (Returns valid configurations for Status and Priority). It specifies the verb 'returns' and the resource 'valid configurations', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_sprint_stats' or 'list_tasks' beyond the resource focus.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'get_one_or_more_tasks' or 'list_tasks', leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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