amazing-marvin-complete-mcp

get_children

Read-only

Retrieve open tasks and subprojects from a category or project. Returns only direct children, so call repeatedly to navigate deeper levels.

Instructions

Get open tasks and subprojects in a category or project. Returns direct children only — call again for deeper levels. Note: orphans (tasks whose parentId points to a deleted/non-existent document) do NOT show up under 'unassigned' — only in get_today_items/get_due_items if they have a day/dueDate (live-tested 2026-08-29). Orphans are repaired by running FIX_CYCLES() in the app's console (a documented troubleshooting path).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`parent_id`	Yes	Category/project ID, 'unassigned' for the Inbox, or 'root' for the top level

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Aug 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses detailed behavior: direct-children-only semantics, orphan exclusion under 'unassigned', and the FIX_CYCLES() repair path. This adds valuable context not available in annotations alone.

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?

The description is somewhat lengthy due to the orphan note and live-tested date, but every sentence adds necessary operational detail. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then expands on limitations, making it well-structured though not maximally concise.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description fully covers behavior, limitations, and troubleshooting. An agent is equipped to call it correctly without ambiguity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema already provides complete parameter documentation (100% coverage) including valid values like 'unassigned' and 'root'. The description does not add new meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool retrieves open tasks and subprojects within a specific category or project, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself by noting it returns direct children only, and mentions the orphan caveat, which sets it apart from sibling tools like get_today_items.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit guidance is given: call again for deeper levels, and for orphans, use get_today_items/get_due_items instead. This directly tells an agent when to use this tool and when to use alternatives.

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