Check progress on prior delegated tasks: retrieve recent assignments for an account and filter by pending, in-progress, completed, or failed status.
List recently delegated tasks for this account, optionally filtered by status. Use to check progress on prior delegations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | all |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Recently" hints at a bounded result window, but it says nothing about how many tasks are returned, pagination, ordering, or permissions — the agent cannot predict the response shape from this text.
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, front-loaded with the resource and scope followed immediately by the use case. No filler, though the second sentence could have been folded into the first without loss.
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 single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic contract but leaves result volume, ordering, and pagination unspecified — details an agent would need to use the list sensibly.
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 has to compensate. It does say the status filter is optional and that filtering is by status, and the enum values are self-documenting, but it adds no meaning about "all" versus a specific status beyond the default already in the schema.
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 and resource ("List ... delegated tasks") plus the scope of the listing ("recently ... for this account"). It clearly implies a collection read, but never names the sibling get_task as the singular-lookup alternative, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.
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?
"Use to check progress on prior delegations" gives a concrete reason to call it, which is better than nothing. However, there is no when-not guidance, no mention of get_task for a single task, and no prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.