Retrieve tasks grouped into high, normal, and low priority buckets from your Worksection account or a specific project. Focus on urgent tasks by filtering by priority.
Group tasks into high, normal and low priority buckets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | No | Limit to one project; omit for the whole account. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the grouping action, but does not disclose the return format (e.g., whether it returns a map of buckets to task lists), whether it is read-only, or any limitations (e.g., handling of tasks without priority). This is minimal 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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that communicates the core purpose without any extraneous detail. It is front-loaded and easily scannable.
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?
Given that there is no output schema, the description should clarify the expected return structure, but it does not. It also omits any caveats about scope (e.g., whether all tasks are included) or behavior when no tasks exist. For a tool with one optional parameter and no annotations, this description leaves significant gaps.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter project_id, which already explains its meaning ('Limit to one project; omit for the whole account.'). The tool description adds no additional information about the parameter, so it does not exceed the schema baseline.
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 action (group tasks) and the grouping criterion (priority into high, normal, low). It implies retrieval of tasks and distinguishes from siblings like get_tasks_by_status (grouping by status) and get_tasks (flat list). The verb and resource are specific, though it doesn't explicitly say 'retrieve' but 'group' carries that meaning.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_tasks, get_tasks_by_status, or search_tasks. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or preferred contexts. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.