List pending or running Paperless-NGX tasks to monitor current processing activity, returning up to 50 active entries.
List tasks that are pending or running right now (at most 50). For finished tasks use list_tasks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_type | No | Filter by task type, e.g. consume_file |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety, and the description adds the 'at most 50' cap and transient scope. It does not disclose ordering, pagination beyond the cap, or how tasks behave after acknowledgment, but there is no contradiction with the annotation.
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?
Two tight sentences with the operational scope and limit front-loaded. The alternative for finished tasks is stated with zero filler.
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 listing tool with one optional parameter, the description is complete enough: it gives scope, a limit, and sibling routing. The only minor gap is that, with no output schema, the return shape is left to inference.
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 covers 100% of the single parameter, task_type, including an example. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema fully carries that burden.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List tasks that are pending or running right now') plus an explicit cap of 50. It also names list_tasks as the destination for finished tasks, clearly distinguishing this tool from its nearest sibling.
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 explicitly says when to use this tool (for pending/running tasks) and when not to ('For finished tasks use list_tasks'). This is direct routing with no ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.