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 the action ('Mark a task as incomplete') and optional logging, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the operation is reversible, error handling, or rate limits. 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds optional details in the second. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying the action and the note feature, with no wasted words or redundancy.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like side effects, error responses, or prerequisites, and does not explain what happens after marking a task incomplete (e.g., status changes). Given the complexity and lack of structured data, it should provide more 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value by hinting at the purpose of 'attempt_note' ('log a failed attempt note with details'), but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most of the documentation.

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 specific action ('Mark a task as incomplete') on a specific resource ('in an Oscribble project'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'oscribble_complete_task' by specifying the opposite operation. It also mentions the optional logging feature, adding further specificity.

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 implies usage when a task needs to be reverted from completed to incomplete, possibly after a failed attempt, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'oscribble_update_task' or provide exclusions. The mention of 'failed attempt note' suggests a context but lacks clear guidance on alternatives.

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