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. It discloses key behaviors like pagination handling (returns all tasks if not provided) and case-insensitive search, which are useful. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, which are important for a list/search operation.

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 well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns, making it easy to parse. However, the initial sentence could be more front-loaded with key details, and some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'case-insensitive'), slightly reducing efficiency.

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 (2 parameters with rich filtering), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description does a good job covering inputs and outputs. It explains filter options and pagination response structure thoroughly, though it could benefit from more behavioral context like error cases or performance notes.

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 fully. It does so by detailing all filter criteria (e.g., prioridade, status, contexto) with specific values and behaviors (e.g., partial search, case-insensitive), and explains pagination parameters and defaults, adding significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Lista e busca') and resource ('tarefas da planilha Kanban'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_one_or_more_tasks', which appears to serve a similar purpose, preventing 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 like 'get_one_or_more_tasks' or 'get_sprint_stats'. It mentions advanced filters and pagination but doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over others, leaving usage unclear.

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