Retrieve new unaccepted tasks sent by work peers, newest first, and optionally wait up to 120 seconds for one to arrive when none are available.
New work peers sent you that you haven't accepted yet, newest first. With wait_seconds, waits for some if there's none.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wait_seconds | No | if there's no new work, wait up to this long for some (max 120) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tasks | Yes | newest first |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses newest-first ordering and that wait_seconds blocks when no work is available, but it does not state read-only safety, pagination behavior, or permission requirements.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core resource and ordering, with the wait behavior appended only as needed. There is no redundant or wasted text.
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 listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and wait semantics. The main minor gap is the absence of explicit read-only framing, though 'list' strongly implies it.
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%, so the single parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description's note about wait_seconds largely repeats the schema's explanation rather than adding new semantic detail.
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 clearly identifies the resource as new work sent by peers that has not yet been accepted, and specifies newest-first ordering. It implicitly distinguishes this from accepted-task siblings via 'haven't accepted yet,' but does not name an alternative tool explicitly.
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?
The description implies this is for checking pending peer tasks and explains the wait behavior when no tasks exist. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus list_accepted_tasks or list_delegated_tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.