List tasks, optionally by status (pending_deposit|open|claimed|submitted|disputed|completed|refunded).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_tasks"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a safe read operation and 'optionally' reveals the default scope, but nothing is said about pagination, ordering, limits, or auth requirements for a tool that could return an unbounded set.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the filter parenthetically attached. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.
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 single-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the optional filter, and the full value domain. Return shape and pagination behavior remain unspecified, but those are minor for a tool this simple.
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 coverage is 0% — the single 'status' parameter is a bare string with no description or enum constraint. The description compensates by enumerating all seven valid status values, which is exactly the semantics an agent needs to invoke this correctly.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List tasks') with the optional filter dimension named, which distinguishes it from get_task and the list_* siblings. It does not explicitly call out those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.
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 word 'optionally' implies the filter is not required and that omitting it returns everything, which is useful usage context. However, there is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus get_task or the other list_* tools, and no prerequisites are stated.
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.