Poll delegated tasks by repository, status, recipient, or assignee to see what work is waiting for an agent.
List delegated tasks by repo/status/recipient/assignee (the worker's poll).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | No | ||
| repoId | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| projectId | No | ||
| forAgentId | No | ||
| assigneeAgentId | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tasks | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies read-only behavior and 'poll' implies repeated retrieval, but the description omits permissions, rate limits, pagination, or side-effect details.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the verb, resource, filter dimensions, and usage context efficiently.
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 six-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but missing parameter semantics and usage guidance leave significant gaps.
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 0%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It maps repo, status, recipient, and assignee to four of the six parameters, but omits repoId and projectId and does not explain optionality or the distinction between similarly named filters.
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 clear verb ('List'), resource ('delegated tasks'), and filter dimensions. The parenthetical '(the worker's poll)' adds a usage context. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_claims or next_task, so it falls short of a 5.
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 worker's poll' implies the context in which this tool is used, giving some usage guidance. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-sibling guidance, which leaves the agent to infer selection behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.