Retrieve all tasks and filter by status or priority to track pending, in-progress, completed, or cancelled work.
List all tasks with optional filtering
Args:
status: Filter by status (pending, in_progress, completed, cancelled)
priority: Filter by priority (low, medium, high, urgent)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | ||
| priority | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely drops it: nothing is said about pagination, result ordering, result-size limits, or required permissions. For a list tool that can return 'all tasks', the absence of any pagination or volume disclosure is a real gap.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded in the first line and the two parameters are listed compactly with no filler. The 'Args:' block is slightly boilerplate but earns its place by supplying enum values absent from the schema.
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?
There is no output schema, no annotations, and only two bare-typed parameters, so the description is the only source of behavioral detail — yet it says nothing about the shape of results, pagination, or ordering. It is adequate for selecting the tool but incomplete for invoking it correctly at scale.
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 0% and the schema defines no enums, but the description compensates by naming both parameters and enumerating their allowed values (pending/in_progress/completed/cancelled, low/medium/high/urgent). It omits default/null behavior and whether filters combine with AND semantics, keeping it below a 5.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('List all tasks') and adds a scope modifier ('with optional filtering'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_task_summary or get_task, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Calling the filters 'optional' implies the tool can be invoked bare to fetch everything or narrowed with status/priority, which is usable implied guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over get_task_summary or get_task, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.