Pull a full snapshot of tasks, projects, tags, and columns by passing checkPoint=0, then reuse the returned checkPoint to fetch only incremental changes.
Offline-first delta pull of the whole account: tasks, projects, tags and columns. Pass checkPoint=0 for a full snapshot, then reuse the returned checkPoint for incremental pulls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| checkPoint | No | Last checkPoint from a previous call (default 0 = full snapshot) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it discloses the delta/incremental model, the full-snapshot trigger, the offline-first purpose, and that a checkPoint is returned. It omits auth/permission requirements and any note on read-only safety, keeping it from a 5.
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?
Two tightly front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The scope and the checkpoint workflow are delivered immediately, and every clause earns its place.
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 one-parameter sync tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential mechanics: what is pulled, how checkPoint drives full vs incremental behavior, and that a checkPoint is returned. It does not describe the returned payload shape or edge cases, but the agent has enough to invoke it correctly.
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% and already explains checkPoint (default 0 = full snapshot). The description adds only the workflow detail that the returned checkPoint should be reused for incremental pulls, which is a modest addition beyond the schema baseline of 3.
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?
States a specific verb ('delta pull') and a clearly bounded resource ('the whole account: tasks, projects, tags and columns'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from the per-entity list_*/get_* siblings, so an agent can tell it is a bulk sync tool without reading any schema.
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?
Explains how to use the tool ('Pass checkPoint=0 for a full snapshot, then reuse the returned checkPoint for incremental pulls') and signals the offline-first sync context. It stops short of explicitly stating when to prefer this over sibling list_tasks/list_projects tools, so it lacks the when-not guidance that would make it a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.