Filter and retrieve personal tasks with pagination. Search by title or description, or filter by status, priority, or due date.
Filter tasks with pagination. Search matches title or description.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| priority | No | ||
| due_before | No | ||
| include_archived | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are paginated and that search matches title or description, which is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations, but it omits ordering, default scoping, and archived-record behavior.
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 with zero filler, and the functional statement is front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the documentation gaps elsewhere.
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 7-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is far too thin: four filter parameters and their accepted values are never explained, and default scoping/archived behavior is unstated.
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% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only loosely implies limit/offset (pagination) and explains search, leaving status, priority, due_before, and include_archived entirely undocumented in both schema and description.
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 clear verb and resource ('Filter tasks') plus two behavioral facts (pagination, search target). However it does not distinguish itself from sibling list/read tools like get_task or task_history, so sibling differentiation is absent.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_task for a single task. Usage is only implicitly inferable from the verb 'filter'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.