Retrieve journal todos with optional filtering by completion status, showing only pending or completed tasks as needed.
List journal todos (task items), optionally filtered by completion status
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| completed | No | Filter: true = completed only, false = pending only, omit = all |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. 'List' signals a read-only operation, and the optional completion-status filter communicates the key behavioral variation. It does not describe return shape or pagination, but for a simple one-parameter list tool this is adequate.
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 one short sentence with the core verb and resource front-loaded. The parenthetical definition and optional-filter clause each add value without repetition or fluff.
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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description plus schema cover the main usage and filtering semantics. Return-field details are not specified, but the simple read-only nature of the tool makes this a minor gap rather than a critical omission.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already explains the completed parameter fully, including behavior when omitted. The description's mention of optional filtering adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('journal todos'), and adds a clarifying parenthetical ('task items') that distinguishes these from journal entries or general tasks. The optional completion-status filter further specifies the operation's scope.
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 clearly establishes when to use the tool: when journal todos need to be retrieved, with an optional filter. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the journal-todo resource is distinct enough among siblings that usage is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.