Retrieve and filter team tasks by assignee, status, priority, or tag to find relevant work items.
List tasks, optionally filtered by assignee, status, priority, or tag
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | Filter by tag | |
| status | No | ||
| assignee | No | Filter by assignee handle | |
| priority | 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 provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says nothing about pagination, result caps, ordering, or permissions. For a list tool that could return an unbounded set, the absence of any result-shape or limit disclosure is a meaningful gap.
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?
A single sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and the optional qualifiers trailing. No filler, no redundancy, appropriately sized for a simple four-parameter list tool.
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?
The description covers the core purpose and filter facets but omits the default behavior when no filters are supplied, any pagination or ordering semantics, and result-size expectations. With no annotations and no output schema, those omissions leave the agent guessing at runtime behavior.
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 50% (tag and assignee are documented; status and priority rely on enums), and the description merely re-lists all four filter names without adding syntax, matching rules, or multi-value behavior. It neither compensates for the coverage gap nor adds meaning beyond 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 gives a specific verb+resource ('List tasks') plus the optional filter dimensions, which is enough to distinguish it from the mutation-oriented siblings like assign_task, update_task, and reassign_task. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
'optionally filtered by...' implies that omitting filters returns the full list, which is reasonable usage guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., team_overview, get_activity) or what the unfiltered default actually returns.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.