Todolist MCP Server

by jgn35

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

List Tasks

list_tasks

List todo tasks with optional filters for status, priority, due date, and pagination.

Instructions

List tasks with optional filters.

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": "list_tasks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum number of tasks to return (default 50)
`offset`	No	Pagination offset (default 0)
`status`	No	Filter by status (pending, completed, cancelled)
`due_date`	No	Filter by due date (YYYY-MM-DD, today, tomorrow, overdue, or range like 2026-08-31..2026-09-02)
`priority`	No	Filter by priority (low, medium, high)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says 'List tasks with optional filters.' It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, mention pagination or defaults, or explain how filters interact. The word 'List' is only weak evidence of non-mutating behavior.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, with no filler. It could arguably be a bit more informative, but as a one-line summary it is concise.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The rich input schema and presence of an output schema reduce the burden, and the description explains the core operation. However, it omits high-level behavioral context such as whether all tasks are returned by default, ordering, or how multiple filters interact.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter details are already fully documented. The description merely repeats that filters are optional, adding no new meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('tasks'), and it mentions filters. It distinguishes itself from sibling CRUD operations by the plural 'list' concept, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_task.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus get_task or the other siblings, and no mention of prerequisites or scenarios. 'List tasks' only implies the obvious collection-retrieval use case.

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

Deploy Server