Taskwarrior MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that it only undoes the 'most recent change' and provides an example of usage. Annotations already cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false), but the description enhances understanding of the tool's specific scope and limitations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, args, returns, examples) and wastes no words. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be slightly more detailed given the simple nature of this tool.

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 undo operation with good annotations and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, parameter requirements, and provides an example. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating what constitutes a 'change' or potential limitations beyond the most recent one.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter (params of type UndoInput with no properties), the description compensates well by stating 'no parameters needed' in the Args section. This clarifies what might otherwise be confusing about an empty parameter object, though it doesn't explain why the parameter structure exists.

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 ('undo') and target resource ('last Taskwarrior operation'), distinguishing it from siblings like taskwarrior_modify or taskwarrior_delete. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('to revert the most recent change to tasks') and implies when not to use it (only for the last operation, not for selective undo). While it doesn't name specific alternatives, the context of sibling tools makes it clear this is for reversal operations.

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