Delete all tasks after confirmation, creating a backup before removal.
Clear all tasks after confirmation. Creates backup before deletion.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "clear_all_tasks"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses destructive intent plus a mitigating behavior (a backup is created before deletion) and a confirmation requirement — real value beyond structured data. It omits reversibility/restore details, backup location, and permission requirements, so the disclosure is partial.
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 filler, and the destructive action is front-loaded before the safety behavior. Efficient, though each sentence is quite terse relative to what an agent needs.
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 destructive bulk operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials (confirmation, backup) but leaves open the blast radius (all tasks across all lists/projects?), what the backup contains, and what the caller receives back. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 coverage is 0% for the single 'confirm' boolean, so the description must carry the meaning. 'After confirmation' hints that confirm gates the destructive action, but it never states that confirm defaults to false or whether omitting it aborts the operation. Partial compensation only.
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?
States a specific verb+resource with scope ('clear all tasks'), which is clearly distinguishable from the sibling delete_task (singular). The second sentence adds the backup behavior. It stops short of explicitly naming the single-task alternative, but the bulk scope is unambiguous.
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?
'After confirmation' implies a prerequisite gate for invocation, and the bulk scope implies this is for wiping everything at once. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. delete_task guidance and no statement of when NOT to use it (e.g., partial cleanup).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.