Lists sales agenda tasks with status filters and pagination, so AI assistants can retrieve pending, completed, or cancelled tasks from NovaCRM.
Lista tarefas da agenda comercial com filtro por status e paginação.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Itens por página (1–100, padrão 50) | |
| offset | No | Deslocamento da paginação (padrão 0) | |
| status | No | Filtrar por status (padrão: todas) | |
| includeArchived | No | Incluir cópias arquivadas (padrão false) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden; it implies read-only via 'Lista' and signals that pagination exists, which is genuinely useful. It does not cover ordering of results, whether the list is scoped to a user/workspace, how archived records behave by default, or rate limits — meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the filter/pagination capabilities come early. It is efficient, though so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than crisp brevity.
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 read-only list endpoint with four optional parameters, a fully documented schema, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits result ordering, the default status scope ('todas'), and any routing advice, which an agent would need to use it correctly alongside the many sibling tools.
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 100%, with each of the four parameters documented (limit range 1–100 default 50, offset, status enum, includeArchived default false). The description only echoes 'status' and 'paginação' and adds no format or interaction detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is right.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Lista tarefas da agenda comercial') plus the two axes of control (status filter, pagination), which lets an agent separate it from novacrm_get_task or novacrm_create_task. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, which keeps it out of 5 territory.
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 never states when to reach for this tool versus novacrm_get_task, novacrm_list_opportunities, or the other list endpoints, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent has to infer the use case from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.