orca_task_listList orchestration tasks and their status, with optional filters for run ID, readiness, and task status to monitor progress and dispatch work.
List orchestration tasks and their status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run | No | Run id. | |
| ready | No | Only tasks ready to dispatch. | |
| status | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that task status is included; it says nothing about filtering behavior, pagination, ordering, or how the run/ready/status filters affect results.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Its brevity is efficient, though it also reflects the under-specification captured in other dimensions.
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 list tool with three optional filters and no output schema, the description does not explain result shape, filtering semantics, or how to choose between this tool and related siblings. An agent can infer basic usage from the name but lacks enough context to invoke it confidently with filters.
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?
The schema describes two of the three parameters (run and ready), but status has no schema description and the tool description does not clarify what status values mean or how filtering by status works. With only moderate schema coverage and no compensating description, parameter semantics remain under-specified.
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 clear verb and resource: listing orchestration tasks, with the additional detail that status is included. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as orca_status or orca_automation_list, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling to choose for related listing or status workflows. The usage is only implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.