Use when you have lost track of a task_id or want to review your past human task requests. Returns all tasks you have submitted, newest first: id, status, description, result, and timestamps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavior beyond a simple 'lists tasks' by stating it returns 'all tasks you have submitted, newest first' and enumerates the result fields (id, status, description, result, timestamps). It does not mention authorization or pagination, but for a read-only, zero-parameter list tool this is reasonably transparent.
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 two sentences: the first delivers immediate usage guidance, and the second concisely states what is returned and the ordering. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or 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?
Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the return value thoroughly ('id, status, description, result, and timestamps'), the ordering ('newest first'), and the scope ('all tasks you have submitted'). For a simple, zero-parameter list tool this is complete and self-sufficient.
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?
There are zero parameters, and the schema confirms an empty properties object. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the '0 params' rule sets a baseline of 4. It adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is required.
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 a specific action: 'Returns all tasks you have submitted, newest first' with the resource scope ('past human task requests') and the fields returned. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_task_status by focusing on listing all tasks rather than checking a specific status.
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 explicitly tells when to use it: 'Use when you have lost track of a task_id or want to review your past human task requests.' It implies that for known task IDs you would use check_task_status instead, but it does not explicitly name an alternative or articulate a when-not.
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 serves a clearly distinct purpose: need_human submits a new human task, check_task_status polls a specific task's status and result, and list_tasks reviews all submitted tasks. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case and follow a verb_noun structure (need_human, check_task_status, list_tasks). However, 'need_human' is less action-oriented compared to the other two, which slightly breaks the predictable pattern of task-centric operations.
With 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for a targeted service: submit a human task, check one task, and list all tasks. This is a minimal but complete set without unnecessary bloat.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of a human-assisted task: creation (need_human), status/result retrieval (check_task_status), and history review (list_tasks). No essential operation is missing for the domain.