list_tasksRetrieve all tasks in a project with their IDs, titles, and current statuses. Use it to review open, in-progress, and reported work before handing items to code agents.
List all tasks in a project with ID, title and status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes | Project slug: lowercase letters, digits and hyphens (e.g. my-app). |
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. It discloses the returned fields but says nothing about ordering, pagination/limits for large projects, permissions required, or whether archived tasks are included.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope and returned fields are packed into one clause and nothing is repeated or padded.
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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, naming the returned fields (ID, title, status) compensates well. However, with no annotations and no ordering or pagination details, an agent calling this on a large project knows little about the result shape.
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 100%, and the schema itself documents the project slug format with a regex and example, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates that the project scopes the listing and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.
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 ('List') plus resource ('tasks') and scope ('in a project'), and even names the fields returned (ID, title, status). It is distinguishable from create_task and get_next_task, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_next_task for the next actionable item or get_report for reporting. The usage is only implied by the word 'List', leaving the agent to infer routing on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.