Lists in-progress tasks with no notes or changes within a set number of hours, grouped by owner and ordered oldest first so teams can spot stalled work and follow up.
in_progress tasks with no note or change in the last N hours, grouped by owner (oldest first).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hours | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior beyond the schema: results are grouped by owner and sorted oldest-first, and the staleness criterion is defined as absence of a note OR a change. It does not state that it is a read-only operation, what 'no note' means concretely, or whether results are capped.
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 sentence with zero waste; the defining condition is front-loaded and the output characteristics follow as a compact qualifier. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers the filter criterion, the grouping, and the ordering — the things an agent needs to interpret results. Only the read-only nature and any result limits are left 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 coverage is 0% (the single `hours` property has no description), so the description must compensate, and it does: 'last N hours' ties the parameter to the staleness window measured against last note/change activity. It does not restate the default of 2, but the meaning of the parameter is otherwise clear.
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?
The description names the resource (in_progress tasks) with a precise qualifying condition (no note or change in the last N hours) and the output shape (grouped by owner, oldest first). That is enough to distinguish it from generic listers like task_list, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings such as task_waiting or task_flags.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for surfacing abandoned work, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over task_list or task_waiting, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given. Minimum viable, with clear gaps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.