Retrieve actions with optional filters for status, assignee, priority, or linked event to manage scheduled tasks.
List actions, optionally filtered by status, assignee, priority, or linked event.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter by status (optional) | |
| assignee | No | Filter by assignee (optional) | |
| event_id | No | Filter by linked event (optional) | |
| priority | No | Filter by priority (optional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' and the optional filter parameters convey a read-only query operation, but the description does not mention pagination, ordering, access scoping, or return format, leaving some non-obvious behavior unspecified.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose first and then lists the optional filters. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.
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 relatively simple list operation with zero required parameters and all parameters documented in the schema, the description is mostly complete. It omits details like return structure and pagination, but the low complexity and clear verb make it sufficiently usable for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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 the input schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description adds only a concise summary of the filter dimensions without introducing new semantic information, matching the baseline of 3.
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 clearly states the operation ('List') and resource ('actions'), and enumerates the available filters (status, assignee, priority, linked event). This distinguishes it from get_action, create_action, update_action, and delete_action, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
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?
Usage is implied: use this tool when you need a collection of actions, optionally narrowed by filters. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives like get_action for a single action or list_events for events, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.