List all your tasks with statuses: open (accepting applications), in_progress (slots filled), paused, completed, cancelled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tasks | Yes | Your tasks, newest first |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "tasks": {
+ "description": "Your tasks, newest first",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "accepted_count": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "max_executors": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "reward": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "enum": [
+ "open",
+ "in_progress",
+ "paused",
+ "completed",
+ "cancelled"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "tasks"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds context by explaining what the statuses mean (e.g., 'open' means accepting applications), which goes 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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the main action, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.
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 list tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential information. It could mention ordering or pagination but is adequate.
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 are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the statuses in the output. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 clearly states it lists all tasks and enumerates the possible statuses. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_task and get_task, but does not explicitly differentiate.
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 (to see all tasks and their statuses) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.