Summarize task statuses to track progress and identify blockers in persistent plan and task management workflows.
Summary of task statuses.
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": "task_summary"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing: it does not state that this is a read-only aggregate, what dimensions are summarized (counts by status? per-task rollup?), or whether it covers all tasks or just the current session. For a zero-annotation tool this is a significant disclosure gap.
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 short, front-loaded fragment with no wasted words, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely concise. It is efficient but does not earn its brevity by conveying useful content.
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, no-output-schema aggregate tool, the description should define the shape of the summary (what statuses, what scope, what counts). None of that is present, leaving the agent unable to predict the result.
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 schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; per the baseline rule a 4 applies. The description neither helps nor hurts here.
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 'Summary of task statuses' essentially restates the tool name (task_summary) in slightly expanded form, with no verb and no indication of what the summary contains or how it differs from task_list or cognitive_status. It names the resource (task statuses) but not the action, making it a near-tautology rather than a differentiating statement.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this instead of task_list, task_get, or cognitive_status, nor any mention of prerequisites or context. The agent must guess from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.