Retrieve tasks for a specific project with pagination to handle large task lists. Use projectId and optional skip/limit parameters for controlled data fetching.
List tasks for a project with pagination. Returns { items, total, limit, skip, hasMore }. Default limit: 50, max: 200.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | Number of tasks to skip (for pagination) | |
| limit | No | Max tasks to return (default 50, max 200) | |
| projectId | Yes | The project ID |
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 and does disclose useful behavior: the exact return shape, the default limit of 50 and the max of 200. It omits ordering of results, behavior when a project has no tasks, and any permission requirements, which leaves real gaps for a read tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by pagination mechanics. Nothing is padded, though the return-shape sentence is slightly compressed in a way that makes it a list of field names rather than an explanation.
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?
There is no output schema, so including the return shape ({ items, total, limit, skip, hasMore }) is genuinely valuable and covers the main unknown. Combined with the limit bounds, an agent can call this correctly; only result ordering is left unstated, which is a minor gap for a list tool.
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 are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description restates the limit defaults and names the pagination concept, but adds no semantics beyond what the schema already says about skip/limit.
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 and resource ('List tasks for a project') plus the pagination scope, so the agent knows exactly what it enumerates. It does not mention the sibling search_tasks, which also returns tasks and could be confused with this one, so sibling differentiation is absent.
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?
Usage is implied by the shape of the tool – enumerate tasks within a known project at paginated scale – but the description never says when to prefer it over search_tasks or how it relates to get_task. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.