Retrieve all tasks or filter by status (pending, in_progress, completed, failed) to view task progress.
List all tasks or filter by status
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter tasks by status (optional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether the list is exhaustive. The statement 'list all tasks or filter by status' is insufficient to infer safety or performance characteristics.
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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with 'list all tasks' which communicates the core purpose immediately.
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?
Given no output schema, the description should explain return format, ordering, or limits. It lacks these details. Additionally, with many sibling tools, the description fails to help an agent understand what tasks are included (e.g., all tasks in system or per user).
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?
The schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage and an enum, which fully defines the parameter. The description's mention of 'filter by status' adds no new semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 per guidelines.
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 verb 'list' and the resource 'tasks', and mentions optional filtering by status, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_task that retrieve a single task. However, it does not specify the scope (e.g., all tasks in workspace) nor differentiate from similar list tools.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_task, list_workflow_runs, or search-based tools. The description does not include context for when filtering is appropriate or when to use alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.