Oscribble 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 mentions recording a start timestamp, implying a write operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or how it interacts with other tools (e.g., if starting a task affects its status). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and purpose. There is no wasted wording, making it appropriately sized and easy to understand at a glance.

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 complexity of a timing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what happens after timing begins (e.g., does it return a confirmation or task state?), potential side effects, or how it fits into the broader workflow with siblings, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters in the input schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain format constraints or relationships between parameters), so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 action ('Begin timing') and resource ('a task'), specifying that it records a start timestamp. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'oscribble_complete_task_with_timing' or 'oscribble_update_task', which might involve similar timing operations, leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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. It lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., if the task must exist or be in a specific state), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'oscribble_complete_task_with_timing', which might handle timing differently.

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