Oscribble 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 states the tool searches tasks but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it's read-only or has side effects, what the output format looks like (e.g., list of tasks with details), if there are rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and scope, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness in tool descriptions.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, output format), usage context compared to siblings, and doesn't compensate for the absence of structured output information, making it inadequate for full agent understanding.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('project_name' and 'query') with their types and purposes. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only implying that 'query' searches 'text and notes' without providing additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Search') and target resource ('tasks'), specifying the search scope ('by keyword in text and notes'). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'oscribble_list_tasks' or 'oscribble_get_task_details' that might also retrieve tasks, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific search functionality.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'oscribble_list_tasks' for unfiltered listing or 'oscribble_get_task_details' for specific task retrieval, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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