Retrieve all todos in the current plan to review tasks and monitor progress.
Get all todos in the current plan
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_todos"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation and adds the 'current plan' scope, but it does not disclose return format, ordering, or behavior when no plan is active. For a simple getter, this is adequate but minimal.
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 concise sentence ('Get all todos in the current plan') that conveys all essential information without redundancy or filler. Every word contributes to the meaning.
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 zero-parameter read-only tool, this description is nearly complete. It states the resource and scope. There is no output schema, so the description could theoretically mention the return format, but 'get all todos' sufficiently implies the response. Sibling tool names further clarify context.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. With 0 params, the baseline is 4; the description adds no parameter-related detail, but none is needed.
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 ('Get'), identifies the resource ('all todos'), and scopes it ('current plan'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_plan (plan-level data) and add_todo/remove_todo/update_todo_status (mutating operations).
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 phrase 'in the current plan' implies this is the read-only counterpart to the todo mutation tools, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. No direct alternative or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.