Retrieve tasks grouped by status, with counts and task details per group. Filter by project or fetch the whole account.
Group tasks by status, with counts and the tasks in each group.
| 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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool groups tasks and includes counts, but it does not state whether tasks without a status are included, whether it is read-only, or any pagination or permission considerations. These gaps could lead an agent to assume broader or narrower behavior than actually exists.
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 sentence that states the core action and output composition with zero filler. It is front-loaded with the primary behavior and efficiently conveys the key information an agent needs.
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?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, and the description gives a basic outline of the response (grouped tasks with counts). However, it omits important contextual details such as whether tasks with null status are included, whether grouping is based on a specific field, and does not reference the optional project_id behavior. This is adequate but leaves room for misinterpretation.
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 input schema provides a full description for the only parameter (project_id: 'Limit to one project; omit for the whole account.'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but per the rubric the baseline of 3 applies when the schema fully documents the parameter.
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 states a specific action and resource: grouping tasks by status, with counts and tasks per group. This implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like get_tasks_by_priority or get_overdue_tasks, though it does not explicitly name an alternative. It is concise and specific enough for a capable agent to understand what the tool returns.
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_all_tasks, or get_tasks_by_priority. The description does not mention use cases, exclusions, or contrast with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate situation based only on the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.