List all tasks in a project with compact summaries to get a quick overview. Use get_task for full details of a specific task.
List all tasks in a project (compact summaries). Use get_task for full details of a specific task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| teamId | No | Team ID (auto from session if omitted) | |
| projectId | No | Project ID (auto from session if omitted) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the result is a compact summary rather than full task details, which is a useful behavioral trait, but it omits details like pagination, ordering, or whether all tasks are truly returned without limits.
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 no redundant wording. The main behavior is front-loaded, and the alternative is pointed to succinctly.
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?
The description is minimally sufficient for a simple list operation, but with no output schema it does not specify the exact shape of a 'compact summary', pagination behavior, or session prerequisites. The optional session-derived parameters are covered by the schema, but the overall context is not fully fleshed out.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no further parameter semantics, but the schema fully compensates.
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 specific action ('List all tasks') and a clear resource ('in a project'), with the distinguishing scope of 'compact summaries' that separates it from get_task (full details) and search_tasks (search). The purpose is immediately unambiguous.
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?
Names the alternative tool get_task for when full details are needed, giving a clear usage contrast. It does not explicitly discuss when to prefer search_tasks or mention prerequisites like session initialization, but the core differentiation is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.