Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-taskflow

mcp-taskflow

by CalebGerman
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_tasks

Retrieve tasks by status—pending, in progress, completed, or blocked—to get counts and an overview for planning and tracking.

Instructions

List tasks by status. Returns task overview with counts and filtering.

Tool call template

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": "list_tasks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNoall

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does 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 implies a read operation and hints at an aggregate view ("counts"), but never states read-only safety, whether results are paginated or limited, or how counts scope to the filter — significant gaps for a listing tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation, with no filler. The second sentence is slightly vague ("overview with counts and filtering") but not wasteful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-optional-param tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally adequate but leaves the return shape undefined beyond "counts," and gives no pagination, ordering, or result-size expectations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but there is only one parameter and its enum values (all/pending/in_progress/completed/blocked) are largely self-explanatory. The description adds only "by status" and does not clarify what "all" means or how filtering interacts with the returned counts.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ("List tasks") with a scope qualifier ("by status"), which is clearer than a bare name restatement. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as query_task or get_task_detail, so an agent has to guess which list/query tool applies.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No indication of when to use this over query_task, get_task_detail, or the other task-inspection siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only guidance is the implicit "when you want a list," which the description never actually states.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools