Debitura

List Tasks

list_tasks

Read-onlyIdempotent

List every open task (action-item) across your whole account — things the platform needs you to do before a case (or your account) can proceed: reply to a chat, sign a contract, assign a bank account, and so on. Use get_case_tasks instead to scope this to one case.

Tasks auto-resolve once the underlying condition clears — e.g. replying to a case's chat makes its ReplyToChat task disappear on its own. Treat this as a live work queue, not a log: a task seen on one call may no longer be open on the next.

Every task carries a solutionUrl — an absolute link a human can open to resolve it in one click, whatever the type. Some types (today: ReplyToChat, ClientInputRequired, MoreInfoNeeded) additionally carry a non-null action pointing at the exact API call that resolves them — for those, call send_case_message with the task's caseId instead of sending a human to solutionUrl. Tasks without an action rely on solutionUrl alone.

Task types: Generic, ReplyToChat, SelectQuoteWinner, ReviewPartner, ClientInputRequired, SignContract, MoreInfoNeeded, AssignBankAccount, CaseValidationNeedsInfo.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number, starting from 1 (default 1)
`type`	No	Restrict to specific task types, e.g. ["ReplyToChat", "SignContract"]. Valid values: Generic, ReplyToChat, SelectQuoteWinner, ReviewPartner, ClientInputRequired, SignContract, MoreInfoNeeded, AssignBankAccount, CaseValidationNeedsInfo
`status`	No	Filter by task status. "Open" (default) or "Solved".
`pageSize`	No	Results per page (default 10, max 100)

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, and idempotentHint true. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: tasks auto-resolve, treat as live work queue not a log, and explains the solutionUrl and action fields for resolution, including specific types that support API-based resolution.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear paragraphs for purpose, scope alternative, behavior, and resolution details. It fronts the main purpose first. Slightly verbose but not overly so; each part adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides substantial context on behavior, task types, resolution methods, and relationship to sibling. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but mentions solutionUrl and action fields which likely appear in output. Adequately complete for a list tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description does not add new meaning to the parameters themselves, but provides context on how the 'type' filter relates to the task types listed. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists all open tasks across the entire account, using specific verb 'List' and resource 'tasks'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_case_tasks' by noting the scope difference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit guidance: when to use this tool (list all open tasks) and when to use the alternative 'get_case_tasks' for scoping to one case. Includes context on auto-resolution and live queue nature.

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

All Debitura tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action—creation, preview, listing, detail, and case-specific sub-resources (activity, contracts, messages, payments, tasks, files). The potentially overlapping task tools (list_tasks vs get_case_tasks) are explicitly cross-referenced and scoped differently.

Naming Consistency5/5

Consistent verb_noun pattern throughout: create_, get_, list_, send_, upload_, preview_. Case-specific reads use get_case_* suffix pattern, and ping is the only utility exception.

Tool Count4/5

16 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but each tool earns its place in a comprehensive case-management API; no redundant tools.

Completeness4/5

Core lifecycle is covered (preview, create, list, get, sub-resources, messaging, file upload). Minor gaps include no case update/withdraw and no direct resolution for task types like SelectQuoteWinner, but these are mostly platform-controlled or handled via solutionUrl.

Resources

Need Help?