obsidian_tasks_listRetrieve all tasks and checkboxes from across the Obsidian vault for comprehensive review.
Lists tasks (checkboxes) found across the vault.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "obsidian_tasks_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| json | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists tasks but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, or if any side effects exist. This is insufficient for an agent to understand behavioral implications.
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 sentence, concise and front-loaded. However, it lacks necessary detail, making it slightly over-terse for effective use.
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 parameter and no annotations, the description should at least explain the parameter and expected output. It fails to do so, leaving significant gaps in understanding.
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 only parameter 'json' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain its purpose (e.g., returning results in JSON format). The agent cannot infer how to use the parameter.
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 states the tool's action (lists), resource (tasks/checkboxes), and scope (across the vault). It differentiates from sibling tools like obsidian_task_create by focusing on listing existing tasks rather than creating them.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like obsidian_search (which might find tasks via text search) or obsidian_task_create (to create new tasks). The description lacks usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.