Kaiten MCP Tools

list_subtasks

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch child cards linked to a given card to inspect subtasks, with paging and summary or full detail options.

Instructions

Read child cards linked to this card.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No
`limit`	No
`detail`	No
`offset`	No
`card_id`	No
`text_offsets`	No	JSON pointer -> character offset. Reuse the same page and all returned text cursors to continue.
`previous_page`	No	Pass page_fingerprint from the preceding page to detect an API ignoring pagination.
`section_offsets`	No	JSON pointer -> nested array offset. Reuse the same page to continue a section.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`item`	No
`error`	No
`items`	No
`limit`	No
`total`	No
`offset`	No
`metadata`	No
`warnings`	No
`pagination`	No
`next_offset`	No
`continuation`	No
`comments_limit`	No
`comments_offset`	No
`page_fingerprint`	No
`comments_included`	No
`next_text_offsets`	No
`comments_next_offset`	No
`total_in_selected_pages`	No
`comments_page_fingerprint`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds only the scoping fact that results are child cards linked to the given card; it omits pagination, auth, and rate-limit behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short sentence, front-loaded and free of filler. It is appropriately concise for a description, though its brevity contributes to other completeness gaps.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has an output schema and rich annotations, which cover return values and safety, but the description does not address the 8-parameter surface or low schema coverage. An agent still needs schema inspection and cannot learn pagination or usage routing from the description.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Eight parameters with only 38% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. It does not clarify the card identifier, pagination cursors, limit/offset, or detail enum, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('child cards linked to this card'), which distinguishes it from generic card lists and comment/tag/blocker siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling to avoid, but the resource is clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to choose this tool over get_card, list_card_blockers, or other card-list siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the resource scope.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.