list_tasksRetrieve tasks assigned to you or created by you. Defaults to active tasks; optionally include finished ones.
List tasks assigned to you or created by you. Active ones by default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| show | No | Which tasks: those you were assigned, those you created, or both | all |
| include_finished | No | Also show done, failed, cancelled and expired tasks |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context that the default is active tasks only and that results are scoped to the user's assignments or creations, but it does not describe pagination, maximum results, or return format.
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 with no wasted words. The scope and default filtering behavior are front-loaded and immediately actionable.
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 two-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and a readOnlyHint, the description provides enough context to call it correctly. It could be slightly richer about result ordering or limits, but nothing essential is missing.
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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description lightly mirrors the show parameter's ownership scope and the include_finished default behavior, but adds no syntax or edge-case details beyond the structured fields.
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: list tasks, scoped to tasks assigned to or created by the user. This distinguishes it from mutating siblings like update_task and send_task, but it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling list tools.
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?
It clearly indicates the default context (active tasks) and the two ownership scopes. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the usage context is well implied for a list operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.