List tasks in a project. Supports optional filtering by name (search), status, and assignee.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | No | Filter task name by case-insensitive substring | |
| status | No | ||
| projectId | Yes | Project ID (UUID) | |
| assigneeId | No | Filter by assignee profile ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, nor does it mention pagination, ordering, or error behavior. The only behavioral hint is the word 'List', which implies retrieval, but that is minimal.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List tasks in a project') and then lists optional filters. No wasted words.
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?
The description covers the basic purpose and filters but lacks details about the return format, pagination, or potential errors. Without an output schema, the description could have added value by stating that it returns a list of task objects, but it does not. For a simple list tool, this is a moderate gap.
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 high (75%), with search, projectId, and assigneeId already described in the schema. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond re-stating the filter names. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool lists tasks within a project, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tasks'). It differentiates from sibling tools like get_task (single task retrieval) and list_projects (projects instead of tasks).
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 implies usage for filtering tasks by name, status, or assignee, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_task should be used for a single task, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the required projectId in the schema.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource-action pair, such as create_task vs update_task vs set_task_progress. Even the two task-modifying tools have clearly separated concerns: one updates arbitrary fields, the other specifically updates progress with auto-derived status.
All tool names follow the verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_, list_, delete_, get_, add_, set_, update_). The only compound verb, reschedule_and_propagate, still fits the pattern and reads predictably.
15 tools is within the well-scoped 3-15 range, and each tool covers a meaningful operation for a project management domain. No redundant or trivial tools are present.
Tasks have full CRUD plus progress and dependency management, but milestones lack update/delete operations, and dependencies only support addition (no removal). These are notable gaps that may require workarounds in some workflows.
