Retrieve your assigned and created tasks. Filter by project or daily type to view specific task lists.
Get tasks assigned to or created by me.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Filter by task type |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys a read-like 'Get' operation and personal scope, but does not disclose authentication needs, pagination behavior, result shape, or side effects. For a list operation, only minimal behavioral information is present.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, and the key scope ('assigned to or created by me') is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the simple operation.
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?
The definition is minimally sufficient: an agent knows what the tool returns and that an optional type filter exists. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and no explicit routing among sibling task-list tools, it lacks some context needed to reliably choose between taskhub_tasks_my, taskhub_tasks_list, and taskhub_tasks_daily.
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%: the optional 'type' parameter is documented with enum values 'project' and 'daily' plus a 'Filter by task type' description. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('tasks'), and scope ('assigned to or created by me'), making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes from generic listers like taskhub_tasks_list by emphasizing personal ownership, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus taskhub_tasks_list, taskhub_tasks_daily, or taskhub_search. The phrase 'assigned to or created by me' implies a personal-task scenario, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.