Fetch tasks from the desktop app database, filtered by status, project ID, tag ID, or keyword. Leave filters empty to return all tasks.
获取任务列表。支持按状态、项目ID、标签ID、关键词筛选。不传参数则返回所有任务。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | 任务状态筛选，可选值: not_started(未开始), paused(暂停), in_progress(进行中), completed(完成), archived(归档) | |
| tag_id | No | 按标签ID筛选 | |
| keyword | No | 按标题或描述关键词搜索 | |
| project_id | No | 按项目ID筛选 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns a task list and that no parameters yield all tasks, which is helpful. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, whether archived tasks are included by default, or any rate limits/scoping—gaps typical for a list operation.
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 sentences with no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by filter options and default behavior. Every sentence adds value.
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 optional-parameter list tool, the description covers purpose, filters, and default behavior. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits return-value structure, pagination, and sort order, which an agent may need to fully interpret the result.
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 the schema fully documents all parameters. The description only restates the filterable fields (status, project ID, tag ID, keyword) without adding deeper semantics or examples. 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: '获取任务列表' (get task list). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like task_get (single task retrieval) and project_list/tag_list (other resources). The filtering details further clarify scope.
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 gives clear context: it supports filtering by status, project ID, tag ID, or keyword, and explicitly says that omitting all parameters returns all tasks. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5, but the usage context is well conveyed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.