Retrieve paginated snapshots of project tasks and Gantt-ready status, filtered by assignee, status, or ready-to-execute work. Inspect plans and identify actionable next tasks.
Paginated snapshot. Save revision. ready_only finds executable tasks; assignee includes unassigned when ready_only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| assignee | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| ready_only | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination via "Paginated snapshot" but gives no read-only safety signal, no behavior around the status/limit/cursor parameters, and no sense of what a revision is or whether anything is mutated. "Save revision" reads like a mutation hint with no supporting context.
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 text is short but fragmented into disconnected clauses, and "Save revision" does not clearly earn its place since its meaning is never established. It is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, and the most useful clue (ready_only semantics) is buried last.
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 6-parameter, 0%-coverage tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It never states the return shape or pagination mechanics (how cursor/limit interact) and omits most parameter semantics, leaving an agent unable to call it confidently.
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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies two non-obvious behaviors (ready_only finds executable tasks; assignee includes unassigned when ready_only), but leaves status, limit, cursor, and project_id entirely undocumented, and even the two it mentions are terse.
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 phrase "Paginated snapshot" hints at a read operation returning a project view, but there is no explicit verb+resource statement like "retrieve a project's tasks." The fragment "Save revision" is confusing and unexplained, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like get_detail or list_projects.
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 explains what ready_only and assignee do, which is parameter behavior rather than when to choose this tool. There is no guidance on when to use project_view versus get_detail or list_projects, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.