List currently open TaskMarket tasks with reward, mode, competition, tags, and expiry; filter by mode or tag to match your criteria.
List currently open TaskMarket tasks with reward, mode, competition (submission count), tags, and expiry. Optionally filter by mode or tag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | Only tasks carrying this tag | |
| mode | No | ||
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 discloses the returned fields, which is helpful, but says nothing about pagination (the limit parameter caps at 100), ordering, default sort, or whether results are cached/live. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the filter capability. Zero waste and easy to scan.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, and the description leaves the undocumented parameters (mode, limit) plus return ordering and pagination unexplained. Given the tool's modest complexity this is under-specified for an agent to call it confidently.
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 only 33%, so the schema documents 'tag' but leaves 'mode' (enum) and 'limit' undescribed. The description adds no syntax, default, or range details for mode/limit, so it does not compensate for the uncovered parameters. Baseline 3 is at the upper edge here.
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 (List) and resource (currently open TaskMarket tasks), enumerating the fields returned (reward, mode, competition, tags, expiry). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like taskmarket_get_task (single task) and taskmarket_market_stats (aggregate stats).
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?
Implies usage via 'Optionally filter by mode or tag', which gives some sense of when to use it, but never states when to prefer this tool over taskmarket_find_delegatable_tasks or taskmarket_get_task. No exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.