Retrieve tasks with optional filters for assignee and due date. Open tasks are returned by default, sorted by due date.
List tasks, default open ones, optionally filtered by assignee (hamza|sana|ali) and due date (YYYY-MM-DD). Sorted by due date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | open | |
| assignee | No | ||
| due_before | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. Description adds that results are sorted by due date and that status defaults to open, which is behavioral detail not in the structured fields.
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?
One well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and then adds filters and ordering. No wasted words.
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 that an output schema exists, return format need not be explained. The description covers purpose, default behavior, sort order, and filter formats, which is nearly complete for a 4-parameter read-only list tool.
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 0% (no per-parameter descriptions), but the description compensates by clarifying assignee expected values (hamza|sana|ali) and due date format (YYYY-MM-DD). It does not explain limit or status parameters, leaving gaps.
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+resource ('List tasks') and adds useful scope ('default open ones'). Distinguishes from create_task and complete_task, though not from all siblings explicitly.
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?
Implies usage by mentioning default filters and optional assignee/due date filtering, but does not explicitly say when to use this vs the sibling create_task or complete_task. Context is implied, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.