Retrieve directly linked tasks for a given task key, avoiding recursive link loading to return only immediate connections.
Retrieve directly related TeamStorm tasks without recursively loading their links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_key | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| links | Yes | ||
| taskKey | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations by explicitly stating that only direct links are returned and recursion is avoided. This is useful and unambiguous.
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, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and then adds the key scope qualifier, making it immediately parsable by an agent.
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 simple one-parameter read operation with a full output schema and safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient. The main missing piece is an explicit definition of what counts as 'directly related,' though the non-recursive qualifier mitigates that ambiguity.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does not explicitly state that `task_key` identifies the source task whose related tasks will be retrieved, relying instead on the parameter name. This is a gap at this coverage level.
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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a clear resource ('directly related TeamStorm tasks'), and an important scope qualifier ('without recursively loading their links'). This distinguishes the operation from a generic or recursive fetch and leaves no ambiguity about what result to expect.
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 phrase 'directly related' and 'without recursively loading their links' implies this tool is for one-hop relationships, not deep traversal. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools or when an alternative should be used, leaving the routing decision mostly implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.