Retrieve every Microsoft To Do list so you can view, select, or manage tasks by list name. Use it when you need the available lists before adding, completing, or searching tasks.
列出所有 To Do 列表
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no result ordering, no mention of authentication requirements, so it contributes no behavioral context of its own.
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 short sentence that is front-loaded and free of filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.
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 a simple parameterless read, but it sits among many similarly named list_* siblings, and the description gives no cue about scope, result shape, or selection criteria. With no output schema and an obviously crowded namespace, more context was warranted.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Parameter semantics are not applicable here.
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 verb (列出) and resource (To Do 列表) with an 'all' scope quantifier, but this largely restates the tool name list_lists. It offers no differentiation from siblings such as list_tasks or list_steps, leaving the agent to infer which list type is meant.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus list_tasks, search_tasks, or get_today_tasks, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. auth). The agent must guess the appropriate context purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.