list_task_listsList the Microsoft To Do task lists for the signed-in user, with display names and whether each is a well-known list (e.g. the default "Tasks" or flagged-email list). Use to discover a to-do list and its ID before listing tasks or reminders.
| 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?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by specifying the signed-in-user scope, the returned fields, and the role of well-known lists. No annotation contradiction exists.
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: the first states the operation and output, the second states the intended use case. There is no padding or repetition, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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?
This is a simple, zero-parameter read-only list operation. The description covers scope, key output fields, and why an agent would call it. Even without an output schema, an agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because none are needed.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the Microsoft To Do task lists for the signed-in user.' It also states what is returned (display names and well-known-list status) and how it relates to scheduling tasks, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_tasks or find_due_tasks.
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 explicitly says to use this tool 'to discover a to-do list and its ID before listing tasks or reminders,' giving clear when-to-use context. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives or saying when not to use it, so it does not earn a 5.
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.
The set is dominated by overlapping Pipeworx and prediction-market tools, with ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly described as currently identical, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and discover_tools serving heavily overlapping lookup purposes. The four Microsoft To Do tools are buried among 31 unrelated tools, making it very hard for an agent to select the right tool for the server's apparent domain.
Most names are snake_case, but the naming conventions are otherwise mixed: there are verb_noun tools like list_tasks and get_task, bare verbs like remember/forget/recall, prefixed families like polymarket_*, and noun-phrase names like entity_profile, recent_changes, and pipeworx_trending. The lack of a consistent pattern across the set, especially relative to the Microsoft To Do server name, makes naming unpredictable.
35 tools is already heavy, but the bigger problem is that only 4 of them are for Microsoft To Do, the server's stated name and purpose. The remaining 31 tools belong to unrelated Pipeworx data, prediction-market, and memory-management domains, which is an extreme scope mismatch.
For a Microsoft To Do server, the surface is severely incomplete: list_task_lists, list_tasks, get_task, and find_due_tasks cover reading and browsing only, with no create, update, complete, or delete operations. Even the broader Pipeworx functionality is scattered and redundant rather than forming a coherent domain surface.