Retrieve all issue tasks assigned to the authenticated TestMonitor user, with pagination to navigate results. Use it to review your assigned work.
Get all assigned tasks. Retrieve all tasks assigned to the authenticated user. Apply pagination to navigate through the results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are scoped to the authenticated user and require pagination, but does not disclose return format, pagination defaults, or any rate limits.
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 first two sentences restate the same idea in slightly different words, so not every sentence earns its place. The text is short and front-loaded, but the redundancy prevents a higher score.
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 read-only collection tool in a large sibling set, the description omits what kind of tasks are returned and how this differs from closely related issue-task or issue-collection endpoints. Annotations and schema cover safety and pagination fields, but the tool's exact scope remains ambiguous.
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 description mentions pagination but does not explain the page or limit parameters, their defaults, or acceptable ranges. With schema description coverage reported as 0% for this nested parameter, the description does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics.
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 clear verb and scope: retrieve tasks assigned to the authenticated user. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like get_issue_tasks or get_my_issue_collection, and the word 'tasks' is less precise than the tool name's 'issue tasks'.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_issue_tasks or get_my_issue_collection. The only usage-like sentence concerns pagination, not tool selection or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.