Lists tasks with optional status and priority filters plus pagination, so you can retrieve and review work items in manageable batches.
List tasks, optionally filtered by status/priority, with pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| priority | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "maximum": 1000,
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+}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 implies a read operation and discloses that results are paginated, but says nothing about ordering, default limit, total-count behavior, or permissions. For an unannotated query tool that is a thin disclosure.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with zero padding. It is tight; the only critique is that the brevity is achieved partly by omitting information elsewhere.
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?
A 4-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to describe the return shape and parameter constraints. Neither is present, so an agent cannot predict result ordering, item shape, or valid filter values.
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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It correctly frames status/priority as filters and pagination as limit/offset, but gives no accepted status values (no enum exists), no priority range, and no default limit, leaving the agent to guess valid inputs.
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?
Specific verb+resource ("List tasks") with the filter fields and pagination named, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like task_get or task_summary that an agent might mistake for listing/aggregation.
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?
"Optionally filtered by status/priority" implies when the filters apply, but there is no explicit guidance on when to reach for task_list versus task_get, task_summary, or task_from_plan. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.