Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

tasks.tasklists.get

Retrieve a specified Google Tasks list for the authenticated user by task list ID. Use it to fetch list details and confirm the requested list.

Instructions

Returns the authenticated user's specified task list [HTTP GET]. Returns the requested resource as JSON — request bodies are built from the typed parameters (typed flags win over the params map), or read whole from body_file Siblings over the same resource: delete, insert, list, patch, update.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoExtra KEY=VALUE query pairs for endpoints whose parameters Discovery does not describe.
paramsNoParameter map merged into the request; typed parameters win.
dry_runNoReturn the request that would be sent, without sending it.
tasklistYes[URL path segment] Task list identifier.
body_fileNoRead the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
etagNo
kindNo
titleNo
updatedNo
selfLinkNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / tasklist / description
      Previous value: -"Task list identifier."New value: +"[URL path segment] Task list identifier."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "etag": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "kind": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "selfLink": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "title": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "updated": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description does carry the burden, and it does disclose the HTTP method (GET, hence read-only) and that the resource comes back as JSON. However, it spends its behavioral budget on request-body mechanics ('typed flags win over the `params` map', `body_file`) that are irrelevant to a GET, and says nothing about auth requirements or what happens for a nonexistent/unauthorized task list.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is correctly front-loaded in the first clause, but the middle sentence is generic transport boilerplate about request bodies that does not apply to a read-only GET and dilutes the definition. The trailing sibling list is terse and useful, but the whole is uneven rather than maximally economical.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple single-resource getter with 100% schema coverage and an output schema (so return values need not be described), the description covers purpose, method, and family context sufficiently to invoke it. Only error/auth behavior is missing, which is a modest gap given the tool's low complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents `tasklist`, `params`, `query`, `dry_run`, and `body_file`; the baseline of 3 applies. The description's only added semantics is the typed-vs-params precedence rule, which is already stated in the schema text, so it adds essentially nothing beyond structured fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the authenticated user's specified task list', and tags it as an HTTP GET. It also names the sibling operations on the same resource (delete, insert, list, patch, update), so an agent can place it in the CRUD family without opening the schema. It stops short of saying how it differs from `tasks.tasklists.list` in selection terms, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the word 'specified' plus the required `tasklist` path parameter suggests you call this when you already have an identifier. There is no explicit 'use list to enumerate, use get when you have an ID' routing instruction and no exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools