WayStation 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 creates a task but lacks information on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what the response looks like (e.g., success confirmation, task ID). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loads the core action and lists key optional parameters. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating required vs. optional elements.

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 covers the basic purpose but lacks critical behavioral details (e.g., permissions, response format) and usage guidelines. Given the complexity of creating tasks with custom fields, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 six parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing optional details like 'description, due date, assignee, and custom fields', but doesn't provide additional context beyond what the schema specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Creates a new task') and resource ('in the specified Asana project'), with specific optional details listed. It distinguishes from siblings like 'createAsanaComment' by focusing on task creation rather than comments, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'updateAsanaTask' or 'readAsanaTask'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'updateAsanaTask' or 'createAsanaComment'. The description mentions the tool's function but offers no context about prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases beyond the basic operation.

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