Get completion report for a task list (event) including task status, completions, workers, and photos. Set include_responses to also return the actual submitted response data (numbers, text, choices) for each completed task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list_id | Yes | Task list (event) ID | |
| include_responses | No | Include the actual submitted response values for each completed task (default false — keeps the payload light) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false, so the read-only behavior is clear. The description adds value by listing the specific data elements returned (status, completions, workers, photos, responses), providing concrete behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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: first states the core purpose, second explains the optional parameter. Every sentence earns its place, no wasted words, 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?
No output schema exists, so the description must compensate. It adequately describes the return contents (status, completions, workers, photos, responses) and the effect of include_responses. Minor ambiguity about whether the report includes all tasks or only completed ones, but overall sufficient for the tool's complexity.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the structured definitions for list_id and include_responses are already clear. The description reinforces the include_responses parameter with examples ('numbers, text, choices') but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema 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?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves a completion report for a task list (event) with specific data fields: status, completions, workers, photos, and optionally responses. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tascan_get_event (event details) and tascan_get_task (task details).
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 implies usage for getting a completion report but does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like tascan_get_event or tascan_list_tasks. No exclusions or comparative guidance provided, which is a missed opportunity given the many sibling tools.
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.
Most tools map to a distinct resource+action pair, and the descriptions clearly separate entities like tasks, subtasks, workers, invoices, zones, assets, and reports. A few close pairs (get_report vs generate_report, dispatch_instruction vs dispatch_to_agent, analyze_issue vs auto_resolve) require careful reading, but the descriptions are detailed enough to disambiguate them.
The vast majority follow a tascan_verb_noun pattern with consistent create/get/list/update/delete verbs. Minor deviations like condition_history, server_info, zone_compliance, and one-word find slightly break the otherwise predictable pattern.
At 69 tools, this is far beyond what an agent can efficiently consider, and it bundles several distinct domains into one MCP surface. Even if each tool is individually useful, the combined set is an extreme mismatch for a coherent tool interface.
The surface covers nearly the full lifecycle for projects, events, tasks, subtasks, workers, reports, invoices, zones, assets, issues, and communications. Minor gaps exist (no explicit asset updates/decommissioning, no cancel_invite, no delete_zone), but the main workflows have no dead ends.
