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 retrieves tasks and mentions they can be 'arbitrary JSON objects', which adds some context about output format. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling, which are critical for a read operation in a collaborative tool like Asana.

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 concise with two sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence about JSON objects adds useful context without redundancy. It could be slightly improved by integrating the JSON note into the first sentence for better flow.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that interacts with a complex API like Asana. It lacks details on authentication, response structure, error cases, and how it differs from sibling tools, leaving gaps for an AI agent to use it effectively.

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%, with the single parameter 'projectId' well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't clarify parameter usage, format, or examples. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage by the schema alone.

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 verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('tasks from the specified Asana project'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'readAsanaTask' by focusing on project-level retrieval rather than individual tasks, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'listAsanaTasks' or 'searchAsanaTasks'.

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 'listAsanaTasks' or 'searchAsanaTasks'. The description implies usage for retrieving all tasks from a project, but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions for tool selection.

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