Retrieve tasks from a project by providing its project ID, with pagination and column data. Use this tool when you need to list, review, or process tasks within a Kaneo project.
List tasks in a project with columns and pagination
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | Project ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that results include columns and pagination, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, default ordering, limits, or how pagination is controlled. The name 'list' suggests a non-mutating operation, so this is acceptable but not fully transparent.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It immediately states the action, resource, and scope, and then mentions the relevant output characteristics. Every word contributes useful information.
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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly: list tasks for a project, with columns and pagination. It does not detail return fields or pagination mechanics, but those are reasonable to discover from the response. Minor ambiguity around 'columns' prevents a higher score.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the single parameter projectId is already adequately documented in the schema as 'Project ID'. The description adds no additional meaning or constraints about the parameter, so it does not improve on the schema.
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 clearly identifies the action (list) and resource (tasks in a project), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_workspaces, list_projects, and get_task. The phrase 'with columns and pagination' hints at the response shape but is somewhat ambiguous about whether columns are returned as data or used as grouping.
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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search, list_subtasks, or get_task. The description implies it is for listing tasks within a project, but does not state exclusions or direct the agent to a more appropriate sibling for filtered or detailed queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.