Retrieve a project's recent tasks in reverse chronological order, with count and cursor pagination to page through results.
List recent tasks, newest first. Use count and before (the last task id) for cursor pagination; the response X-Has-Next header indicates more pages. GET /project/{project_id}/tasks/last.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| before | No | ||
| project_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: newest-first ordering, cursor pagination via 'before', and the X-Has-Next response header. It is silent on permissions and on what a returned task contains, and the presence of both 'count' and 'limit' in the schema is left unexplained.
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 with zero filler: ordering and endpoint first, then the pagination contract. Everything is front-loaded and each clause carries information.
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?
With no output schema, the mention of the X-Has-Next header is valuable and covers the pagination return signal. However, the unresolved count/limit duplication and the absence of any scope statement versus list_tasks leave meaningful gaps for an agent choosing and calling this 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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains 'before' as the last task id and references 'count', but never addresses 'project_id' or, more importantly, the duplicate 'limit' parameter that mirrors 'count' — leaving the agent unsure which to send or whether they interact.
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 gives a concrete verb and resource ('List recent tasks, newest first'), which is more specific than a generic list. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as list_tasks, list_recent_template_tasks, or list_cluster_tasks, so the agent must infer the distinction from the words 'recent' and 'newest first' alone.
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 explains how to paginate but never states when this tool should be chosen over list_tasks or how it differs in scope. Usage is implied by 'recent' rather than stated as an explicit condition with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.