backlog.list_tasksRetrieve project tasks from the backlog API, filtering by status and limiting results to manage workflow.
Lists project tasks from the running backlog API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| project_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Lists project tasks' without disclosing pagination behavior, default limit, ordering, whether it returns all tasks or only active ones, or any side effects. The phrase 'running backlog API' is ambiguous and doesn't clarify behavior.
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 short sentence, which is concise, but it wastes the opportunity to add value. It's not poorly structured, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot tell what the response looks like, how to paginate, what statuses are valid, or how this differs from find_tasks_by_title. The tool is simple, but the description leaves too much to inference.
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%, so the description must compensate, but it doesn't explain any parameters. The schema itself has minimal descriptions (just types and enums), so an agent gets no help understanding what 'status' values mean or how 'limit' behaves. The description adds no parameter-level meaning.
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 ('Lists') and resource ('project tasks') and mentions the 'running backlog API', which distinguishes it from generic task listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_task or find_tasks_by_title, though the plural 'tasks' and 'project' scope provide some clarity.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention filtering by status or limit, nor does it explain when to prefer list_tasks over find_tasks_by_title or get_task. The context of 'running backlog API' is vague and doesn't help an agent choose among the many task-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.