keap_list_tasksList tasks (follow-ups / to-dos). Supports filtering, ordering, and cursor pagination. Keap: GET /tasks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No | Filter expression, e.g. `given_name==John` (see Keap REST v2 filtering). | |
| order_by | No | Field to order results by, e.g. `given_name` or `-date_created`. | |
| page_size | No | Number of records per page (max 1000). | |
| page_token | No | Opaque pagination cursor from a prior response's next_page_token. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful operational context — that ordering and cursor-based pagination are supported and which REST endpoint backs it — but says nothing about rate limits, response shape, or default ordering.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the capability list. The endpoint mapping is borderline trivia but cheap and useful for API-aware agents; nothing is padded.
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 full schema coverage the description covers the mechanics (filter/order/paginate). However, there is no output schema, and the description never indicates what a task record contains or how results are ordered by default, leaving the return surface undocumented.
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 all four parameters (filter, order_by, page_size, page_token) are already documented with examples. The description's mention of 'filtering, ordering, and cursor pagination' only restates the schema at a high level, so baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('List tasks') and disambiguates the resource with synonyms ('follow-ups / to-dos'), plus maps to the underlying endpoint ('Keap: GET /tasks'). It doesn't explicitly name siblings (e.g., keap_get_task for a single task) but the singular/plural distinction is self-evident.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no pointer to alternatives like keap_get_task or keap_create_task. The agent can only infer usage from the tool name; nothing indicates when filtering or pagination is appropriate versus other list 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.