List named local tasks to review scheduled or saved items managed by the local-context server.
List named local tasks.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_tasks"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description is not required to restate it. The description does add that scope is "local" and limited to "named" tasks, which hints at a filtering rule, but it never says what makes a task named or whether results include running/unnamed entries.
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?
A single four-word sentence with zero filler and the scope qualifiers front-loaded. It is not padded, though the extreme brevity is close to under-specification rather than crispness.
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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations carrying the read-only/closed-world guarantees, the description only needs to explain what a task is and what the listing returns. It omits both, leaving the agent unable to distinguish the result from task_status or run_task output.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no schema semantics for the description to supplement; baseline 4 applies. Nothing in the description contradicts the empty, permissive parameter object.
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?
"List named local tasks" gives a verb and a resource, so the basic action is clear. But it never defines what a "task" is in this server, and with siblings named run_task and task_status the reader cannot tell whether this lists task definitions, running executions, or something else. The qualifiers "named" and "local" narrow it only vaguely.
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 at all: no conditions, no prerequisites, and no mention of task_status or run_task as alternatives. The agent must infer the routing decision entirely from sibling names, which the definition does nothing to support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.