fcop-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List Tasks

list_tasks

Retrieve tasks filtered by date, sender, recipient, or status, with offset and limit controls for efficient task overview.

Instructions

List tasks, optionally filtered.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	No	Filter by YYYYMMDD date stamp.
`limit`	No	Maximum number of rows to return (0 = no limit).
`offset`	No	Number of rows to skip before returning.
`sender`	No	Filter by sender role code (case-insensitive).
`status`	No	``open`` (default), ``archived``, or ``all``.	open
`recipient`	No	Filter by recipient role code. Matches ``to-ROLE``, ``to-ROLE.SLOT``, and ``to-TEAM`` broadcasts.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.2.4May 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, and 'List' does convey a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it does not mention the default status of 'open', pagination behavior, or any details about which task states are included, leaving the agent to infer those traits from the schema.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is one short sentence with the action and resource front-loaded, and 'optionally filtered' is the only qualifier. No words are wasted, making it exemplary in conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists and the input schema is fully described, so the description does not need to explain parameters or return values. However, for a tool with many sibling list variants and no annotations, the one-line description leaves selection context and behavioral defaults to be inferred, so it is minimally adequate but not complete.

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%, with all six optional parameters documented including defaults and matching rules. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so it neither helps nor hurts beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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 names a specific verb and resource, 'List tasks', and adds the useful qualifier 'optionally filtered'. It is clear about the core operation, but it does not distinguish this from sibling list tools nor from read_task or inspect_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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_history, list_reports, or read_task. The phrase 'optionally filtered' implies some filtering use cases, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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