List the tasks in an event (task list). status "open" returns only tasks with no completion yet: use it when checking for work to do, so a long list is not re-read in full. "done" returns only completed tasks; "all" (default) returns every task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | open = not completed yet (use this to find work), done = completed, all = everything (default). | |
| list_id | Yes | Task list (event) ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / statusAdded value: +{
+ "description": "open = not completed yet (use this to find work), done = completed, all = everything (default).",
+ "enum": [
+ "open",
+ "done",
+ "all"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral note that filtering by 'open' avoids re-reading long lists, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result size limits.
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?
Front-loads the core action, then explains the status filter in a compact sequence. Every sentence carries information, though the enum explanation slightly duplicates the schema.
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 read-only list tool with an output schema absent but an obvious tabular return, the description covers the required list_id and the filter semantics adequately. Ordering/pagination behavior is the only notable omission.
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% and the enum values are already documented per-parameter, so the description largely restates the schema. It adds the default ('all') and a rationale for 'open' but no syntax or format detail beyond the 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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the tasks in an event (task list)'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like tascan_get_task or tascan_list_subtasks, but the scope is clear enough to select the right tool.
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?
Gives explicit guidance on the status filter: 'open' should be used 'when checking for work to do, so a long list is not re-read in full', and 'done'/'all' are defined. No exclusions or named alternative tools, so it stops short of 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.