The Tasks screen as the dashboard lists it: every row by who acts next, including done and dismissed. For what to do next with each task complete, call parse_next_tasks first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mine | No | ||
| marketId | No | ||
| brandSlug | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| dataAsOf | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / viewRemoved value: -{
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "maxLength": 20,
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "default": null
-}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {},
+ "dataAsOf": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "data"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add a useful scope fact — rows include done and dismissed tasks, not just open ones. It says nothing about pagination, result size, or ordering semantics beyond 'by who acts next'.
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?
Two short sentences; the return-content fact is front-loaded and the sibling pointer follows. Slightly awkward wording but no wasted 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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and annotations cover safety. The gaps are the undocumented parameters and thin usage routing, which matter for an agent choosing among many parse_dashboard_* siblings.
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?
Three parameters (brandSlug, mine, marketId) exist with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions any of them. The filtering behavior of 'mine' and the scope of 'marketId' are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.
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 states what the tool returns: the dashboard's Tasks screen listing every row ordered by who acts next, including done and dismissed items. That is specific enough to separate it from the singular parse_dashboard_task and from parse_next_tasks, though the odd phrasing ('as the dashboard lists it') adds some ambiguity.
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?
It offers one routing hint — 'For what to do next with each task complete, call parse_next_tasks first' — which implies this tool is for the full list view rather than actionable next steps. However the sentence is grammatically confusing and no guidance is given on when to use this versus parse_dashboard_task, parse_task, or parse_dashboard_waiting.
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.