CVAT MCP

cvat_list_tasks

List and filter CVAT tasks using parameters such as search, status, project ID, assignee, owner, sort, page, and page size.

Instructions

List CVAT tasks with official /api/tasks filters such as search, status, project_id, assignee, owner, sort, page, and page_size.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "cvat_list_tasks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`search`	No
`status`	No
`project_id`	No
`assignee`	No
`owner`	No
`sort`	No
`page`	No	CVAT page number.
`page_size`	No	Number of results per page.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose key behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, whether it returns a full list or paginated results, or if there are any side effects. The only implicit hint is the mention of page and page_size parameters.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and key parameters. It is concise and front-loaded, though it could benefit from slight restructuring to separate purpose from parameter list.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain the return format (list of task objects) and default sorting/page behavior. It does not provide this context, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only page and page_size have descriptions). The description merely lists parameter names without explaining their meanings, allowed values, or constraints, failing to compensate for the poor schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists CVAT tasks and enumerates specific filters. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like cvat_get_task or cvat_list_projects, which could cause confusion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only lists filters but does not explain context (e.g., when to paginate, or when to use this instead of cvat_get_task for a single task).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server