Retrieve all download tasks from Gopeed, with optional status filtering to inspect running, paused, completed, or failed downloads.
List all download tasks, optionally filtered by status.
Args: status: Filter by status — ready, running, pause, done, error, unknown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, but the verb 'List' strongly signals a read-only operation with no side effects. The description also discloses the allowed status values. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but the output schema covers the return shape, so this is a minor gap.
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?
The description is compact and front-loaded, stating the core behavior in the first sentence. The Args section is minimal and directly supplies the missing parameter semantics without unnecessary detail.
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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering options, and accepted status values. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.
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 input schema provides only a generic string/null status field with no enum or explanation. The description compensates by explicitly listing valid filter values and stating that filtering is optional, adding the necessary semantic meaning beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all download tasks'. It also clarifies the optional status filter, so an agent immediately understands what the tool does and how it differs from task mutation or deletion siblings.
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?
The description clearly indicates this tool is for listing download tasks, with optional status filtering. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_task_detail, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when listing is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.