List the authenticated user's task lists, with options for pagination via page token and maximum results per page.
List the authenticated user's task lists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageToken | No | Token for the next page of results | |
| maxResults | No | Max task lists per page (1-100, default 20) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation that may return partial results. The description adds the scope ('authenticated user's task lists') but doesn't disclose pagination behavior beyond what the schema's pageToken parameter already implies. No contradiction with annotations.
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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the action and resource. No wasted words.
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 read-only list operation with no required parameters and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that it returns only the authenticated user's lists, which it does, and the pagination is already covered by the schema. The lack of an output schema is not a gap since the description's job is not to document return values.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both pageToken and maxResults are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the authenticated user's task lists'), which clearly identifies the operation. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like tasks_tasklists_get, but the verb 'List' versus 'Get' and the plural 'task lists' make the distinction reasonably clear.
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 retrieving the user's task lists, and the sibling context shows tasks_tasklists_get as the alternative for a single list. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus tasks_tasklists_get or tasks_tasks_list, leaving the routing decision mostly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.