Retrieve a complete tasklist context by providing its ID, including metadata and all tasks in one call.
Full context for a tasklist: its metadata plus every task in it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tasklist_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the response scope — metadata and every task, implying a potentially large read operation. It does not mention pagination, error handling, authentication, or performance, but the core read-only behavior is stated.
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 10-word sentence, front-loads the core value ('Full context for a tasklist'), and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.
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 tool is simple (one parameter, no nested objects), but with no output schema or annotations, the description should cover return format and usage context. It explains the return content but omits when to use it and any behavioral caveats, leaving the agent to infer the rest.
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%, and the description never mentions tasklist_id or its expected format. The parameter is largely self-explanatory from its name and type, so the omission is a moderate gap rather than a fatal one.
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 the resource (a tasklist) and the content returned (metadata plus every task), which clearly conveys a comprehensive retrieval operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling context tools like get_project_context or get_task_context, but the resource-specific wording makes the scope unambiguous.
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 on when to use this tool versus the other context getters, nor any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives. The only implied guidance comes from the tool name and the word 'context'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.