MCP for Microsoft To Do

list_checklist_items

Read-only

Retrieve all checklist items from a specified task in Microsoft To Do. Returns detailed JSON or compact text format based on preference.

Instructions

List the sub-items (checklist) of a task.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "list_id": "<list_id>",
      "task_id": "<task_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_checklist_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`list_id`	Yes
`task_id`	Yes
`verbose`	No	If true: returns full JSON. Otherwise: compact text format (default, saves tokens).
`paginate`	No	If true: follows @odata.nextLink up to 20 pages (≈2000 items max). Default false. Use sparingly — large result sets may exhaust the LLM context window.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.1May 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as rate limits, result format, or dependencies. It relies solely on annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having no output schema, the description does not explain the return format. It omits details about pagination behavior and verbose output, which are only hinted in schema descriptions. For a listing tool with multiple parameters, the description is incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only 50% of parameters have schema descriptions; the tool description does not explain the undocumented parameters (list_id, task_id). It implicitly ties task_id to the parent task but offers no clarity on list_id. The schema descriptions for verbose and paginate are present but not reinforced.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses specific verb 'list' and resource 'sub-items (checklist) of a task', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like create/delete/update checklist items or list tasks.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative listing tools (e.g., list_tasks, list_all_tasks). No exclusions or context are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.