Retrieve a list of tasks from Planhat with optional filters on company, archive status, and pagination.
List Planhat tasks.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_tasks"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| company_id | No | ||
| is_archived | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral information beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not disclose pagination behavior, default ordering, or response structure. Given annotations already cover read-only, the description fails to add value.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded and concise. However, it is too brief for a tool with multiple parameters and could include more details without significant bloat.
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?
Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is critically incomplete. It does not cover filtering, pagination, or response fields, failing to provide sufficient context for effective tool use.
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?
Description does not explain parameters (limit, offset, company_id, is_archived). With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate but offers nothing, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names only.
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?
Description clearly states 'List Planhat tasks', using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling list tools (e.g., list_assets, list_companies), but the context of 'tasks' is unambiguous.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like creating, updating, or deleting tasks. No mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusion scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.