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. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating it supports filtering, ordering, and cursor pagination, and identifies the HTTP endpoint, but does not disclose rate limits, default page size, or response shape.
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 concise sentences with no filler. The core action, resource clarification, and key capabilities are front-loaded, and the API endpoint is included as a compact reference.
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 fully described parameters and sensible annotations, the description is mostly complete. It could be more complete by explaining return values or explicitly nameing keap_get_task as the single-record alternative, but the current level is adequate for correct selection and invocation.
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 every parameter is already documented with meaningful descriptions. The description's reference to filtering, ordering, and cursor pagination maps to those parameters but does not add semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.
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?
Clearly states it lists tasks, clarifying they are follow-ups/to-dos, and identifies the underlying Keap GET /tasks API. This unambiguously separates it from keap_get_task (single task) and keap_create_task (write operation) based on the verb and resource.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like keap_get_task or keap_create_task. The mention of filtering, ordering, and pagination implies collection use, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instruction.
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.
Each tool targets a clearly distinct resource and action: list_* tools are separated by entity, get_* tools retrieve individual records, and create_/update_/apply_ tools perform unique mutations. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between tools.
All tools consistently use the keap_ prefix followed by a verb_noun pattern, such as list_contacts, get_company, create_task, and update_contact. The naming convention is uniform across all 18 tools.
At 18 tools, the count falls into the borderline 16-25 range and feels somewhat heavy for a single server. Each tool does have a distinct purpose, but the set is larger than ideal and includes many read-only list/get operations.
Contacts and tasks have reasonable lifecycle coverage, but most other entities such as opportunities, companies, orders, products, and subscriptions are read-only. Notable operations like removing a tag, updating/deleting tasks, and updating opportunities are missing, creating potential dead ends.