list_tasksList tasks, optionally filtered by status, priority, project, or top3 flag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter by status | |
| is_top3 | No | Only show Top 3 focus tasks | |
| priority | No | Filter by priority: 1=high, 2=medium, 3=low | |
| project_id | No | Filter by project ID | |
| include_archived | No | Include archived tasks (default: false) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds the 'optionally filtered' behavior, but it does not disclose the default include_archived behavior, pagination, or result format beyond what the schema provides.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence states the operation and lists optional filters with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes useful information.
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 read-only list tool with five optional parameters fully documented in the schema, the description plus schema are sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. However, it lacks any statement about the default unfiltered behavior or the expected return shape, so it is not fully complete.
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 baseline of 3 applies. The description only paraphrases most of the existing parameter descriptions and omits include_archived, adding no new semantic value beyond the schema.
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?
Description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tasks') and enumerates the filtering dimensions (status, priority, project, top3), making its role clear. It is easily distinguishable from sibling create_task, update_task, complete_task, and delete_task operations.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The agent must infer from the tool name and sibling list that this is the task-listing counterpart, but the description offers no explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.