Search tasks by keyword or ID with pagination to locate relevant items in a task workflow. Supports page and pageSize inputs for navigating large task lists.
Search tasks by keyword or ID with pagination support.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| isId | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| pageSize | 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 mentions pagination support but does not describe return format, permissions, case sensitivity, or any other runtime behavior beyond the bare capability.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core operation and two key capabilities without redundant phrasing.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and four undocumented parameters, the description is too thin for a tool with several retrieval siblings. It omits return structure, pagination behavior, and any differentiation from list_tasks/get_task_detail.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It only implies keyword-vs-ID and pagination; it does not explain the isId boolean, query length limits, page defaults, or pageSize bounds.
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 ('Search') and resource ('tasks'), and scopes it to keyword/ID plus pagination. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as list_tasks or get_task_detail, so it falls 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 search tool versus list_tasks, get_task_detail, or other task retrieval siblings. The description only states the capability, not the context or exclusions for its use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.