Fetch all substeps for a Microsoft To Do task and report each item's checked status, using task ID, title, or list to locate the task.
查看任务的所有子步骤及其勾选状态
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list | No | 限定在某个列表中查找 | |
| title | No | 任务标题（支持部分匹配） | |
| taskId | No | 任务 id（优先于 title） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result includes sub-step completion state, a small amount of return-context value, but does not mention ordering, pagination, or what happens when a task has no sub-steps.
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 with zero filler, front-loading the action and the returned information. Nothing is wasted and nothing is left dangling.
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 zero-required-parameter read tool whose safety and parameters are already fully covered by annotations and schema, the description adequately states output content. The only real gap is the absent usage guidance about locating the parent task, which is minor here.
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 100%, so all three parameters (list, title, taskId) including the taskId-over-title precedence rule are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or matching semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 specific verb and resource: viewing all sub-steps of a task, plus what is displayed (checked state). An agent can distinguish it from list_tasks or add_step, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with the step-related siblings (add_step, update_step, delete_step).
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no naming of alternatives such as list_tasks or search_tasks for finding the parent task first. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.