Retrieve tasks assigned to your agent, optionally filtered by agreement ID, and view task IDs, deadlines, and descriptions.
View tasks assigned to YOU.
Args:
agreement_id: Return only tasks under this agreement. None returns all.
Returns:
Tasks with task ID, agreement, deadline, and description.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agreement_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | 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 burden; 'View' implies a read-only operation and the Returns block names the fields surfaced. It says nothing about permissions, result limits, ordering, or whether the list is paginated, which is a real gap for a query tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
Front-loaded with the core statement, then Args and Returns in two compact blocks. Every line carries information; the only waste is the docstring-style formatting wrapping.
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?
With an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return shape, and it still summarizes the returned fields. Parameter semantics and read-only intent are covered; only edge behavior (ordering, empty result, pagination) is missing.
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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the single parameter: it filters by agreement, and None returns all. That null-default semantics is the key non-obvious behavior and it is stated explicitly.
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 specific verb ('View') and resource ('tasks') with an explicit scope qualifier ('assigned to YOU'), which separates it from siblings like a4a_send_task or a4a_update_task_status. It stops short of naming the nearest alternative (a4a_get_task_results), so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
Usage is only implied by the 'assigned to YOU' scope — an agent can infer this is the read-your-inbox path. No explicit when-to-use versus a4a_get_task_results or a4a_inbox_status is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.