asana-mcp

asana_typeahead_search

Quickly search across tasks, projects, users, portfolios, or tags in an Asana workspace using typeahead queries.

Instructions

Fast typeahead search in a workspace for tasks, projects, users, portfolios, or tags.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "resource_type": "<resource_type>",
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "asana_typeahead_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`workspace`	No	Workspace GID (falls back to the configured default)
`resource_type`	Yes
`query`	Yes
`count`	No
`opt_fields`	No	Comma-separated Asana opt_fields to include in the response (e.g. "name,notes,assignee.name")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'fast typeahead search' and does not disclose whether results are truncated, what authentication is needed, or if the operation is read-only.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficiently worded sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description lacks information about the response format, pagination, or how to interpret results. Given 5 parameters and no output schema, more context is needed for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 40% (only workspace and opt_fields have descriptions). The description lists the resource types (tasks, projects, etc.) which hints at the resource_type enum, but does not add meaning for query, count, or other parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool performs a fast typeahead search in a workspace for tasks, projects, users, portfolios, or tags. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are specific get/list operations for individual resource types.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for quick autocomplete-style search across multiple resource types, but does not explicitly state when to use versus siblings or provide exclusions.

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

Deploy Server