Retrieve active tasks from Jinike's task management system, sorted by priority and due date. Filter by status or priority to focus on what matters next.
Get the user's active tasks from Jinike's task management system. Returns tasks sorted by priority and due date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter by task status (default: active tasks) | |
| priority | No | Filter by priority level |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait — results are sorted by priority and due date — which is useful return-shape information. However, it says nothing about permissions/auth, result limits, or pagination, leaving notable behavioral gaps for a read tool.
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?
Two tight sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the return-ordering detail second. Nothing redundant or padded.
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 simple read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return ordering adequately. It stops short of the operational details (auth, limits) an agent might want, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are fully documented with enums and defaults in the schema itself, so baseline is 3. The description's 'active tasks' phrasing hints at the default status filter but adds no format or semantic detail beyond the schema.
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 ('Get the user's active tasks') and names the source system, so the operation is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like complete_task or create_task, but those are obviously distinct operations, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
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?
The description implies usage (retrieve the task list) but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as daily_briefing, nor any prerequisites or constraints. Usage is inferable from the purpose but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.