clickup_list_tasksList all tasks in a ClickUp list. Returns task ID, name, status, priority, assignees, due date, and URL. Provide list ID (e.g., "123456").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (0-indexed, default 0) | |
| _apiKey | Yes | ClickUp API token | |
| list_id | Yes | List ID to fetch tasks from |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tasks | Yes | Array of task objects |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already declare the tool is safe and idempotent. Description adds value by listing returned fields and confirming it returns all tasks. No contradictions.
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 sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with purpose and output. Ideal conciseness.
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?
Output schema exists and description briefly mentions return fields. For a list tool, the description sufficiently covers core functionality, though pagination or ordering details could be mentioned.
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 100% with descriptions for all 3 parameters. Description only mentions list_id with an example, adding marginal value over schema.
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?
Title and description clearly specify listing tasks in a ClickUp list, with explicit return fields (ID, name, status, etc.) and required parameter list_id. Differentiates from siblings like clickup_get_task and clickup_create_task.
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?
Description states 'Provide list ID' but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., for bulk retrieval vs single task). Usage context is implied but not formally 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.
Many tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap among query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and among prediction market tools. Detailed descriptions help differentiate, but the large number of tools increases chance of misselection.
Naming is highly inconsistent, mixing snake_case and camelCase conventions. ClickUp tools use 'clickup_' prefix while Pipeworx tools have varied patterns (ask_, scan_, validate_, etc.). No unified convention across the set.
35 tools is excessive for a server named 'Clickup', with only 6 ClickUp-specific tools. The remaining 29 are from Pipeworx, which is unrelated. The count is inappropriate for the server's stated purpose.
The ClickUp integration is incomplete, missing basic CRUD operations like update and delete tasks. The Pipeworx side is comprehensive but not relevant to the server's name. For a ClickUp server, coverage is poor.