Hide all completed tasks from a task list to reduce clutter. Cleared tasks remain available but are excluded from default list views.
Hide all completed tasks in a list. Cleared tasks are not deleted but stop appearing in default list responses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tasklist | Yes | Task list ID to clear |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context by clarifying that 'cleared tasks are not deleted but stop appearing in default list responses,' which explains the destructive nature is about visibility, not deletion. It also implies idempotency by describing a state change that would be consistent across calls, though not explicitly stated. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 exceptionally concise—two short sentences that front-load the primary action and immediately clarify the non-deletion behavior. There is zero redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it highly scannable for an agent.
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 tool with a single parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering destructive and idempotent hints, the description is largely complete. It states the action, the scope (completed tasks in a list), and the key nuance (not deleted but hidden). It does not mention reversibility or permission requirements, but these are minor for this simple operation and likely handled elsewhere.
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 has full 100% coverage for the single parameter 'tasklist' with a clear description 'Task list ID to clear.' The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies. No extra guidance on format or retrieval is provided.
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 the tool's purpose: 'Hide all completed tasks in a list.' It uses a specific verb ('hide') and resource ('completed tasks in a list'), and explicitly differentiates from deletion by noting tasks are 'not deleted but stop appearing in default list responses.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tasks_tasks_delete and tasks_tasks_update.
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 provides clear context that this tool is for hiding completed tasks, and explicitly notes it is not a delete operation, which implicitly guides the agent away from using tasks_tasks_delete. However, it does not name specific alternatives or state explicit conditions for when to use or not use this tool, so it falls short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.