List the subtasks of a task, including completion state, stored response values, and completion timestamps (per-set timing).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | Parent task ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations by disclosing the kind of data returned: completion state, stored response values, and per-set completion timestamps. There is no contradiction between the description and the readOnlyHint.
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 a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then appends relevant output details. Every part of the sentence adds information, with no filler or repetition.
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?
For a simple, one-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations, the description covers the main purpose and key returned fields. The phrase 'per-set timing' and 'stored response values' are somewhat ambiguous, and there is no output schema to clarify them, but overall the description is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool and interpret the result at a basic level.
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 is only one parameter, task_id, and the schema already describes it as 'Parent task ID' with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, but it does not need to because the schema fully documents the parameter's meaning.
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 subtasks of a task.' It also enumerates what is included (completion state, stored response values, completion timestamps), which clearly distinguishes it from similar tools like tascan_list_tasks or tascan_get_task. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does without needing to open the schema.
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 when to use the tool: whenever you need the subtasks of a given task. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when listing top-level tasks or querying response history instead. The usage guidance is adequate through implication but not explicit.
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.
