MCP for Microsoft To Do

list_extensions

Read-only

Retrieve custom JSON metadata extensions attached to a specific task in Microsoft To Do, supporting pagination and optional verbose output.

Instructions

List the open extensions (custom JSON metadata) attached to 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_extensions"
  }
}

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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Description adds that it lists 'custom JSON metadata' but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits beyond 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?

Single sentence, concise and front-loaded. Could be slightly more informative but no wasted 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?

With no output schema and only partial parameter descriptions, the description is minimal. It doesn't explain return format, pagination behavior, or how to interpret results.

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?

Schema description coverage is 50% (required parameters list_id and task_id lack descriptions). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning to compensate for this gap.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'open extensions (custom JSON metadata) attached to a task.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_extension and delete_extension.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.

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