Retrieve tasks from a Logseq graph, oldest first, and filter by status, tag, or journal day to focus on specific work items.
Tasks in the graph, oldest first. Filter by status (Todo, Doing, Done...), by tag (tags on the task or any parent block) or by journal day.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | ||
| date | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| status | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | 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, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: results are ordered oldest first, and tag filtering includes tags on the task or any parent block – inheritance semantics that are not in the schema or annotations. It omits the default limit of 50 and any pagination behavior.
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 short sentences with zero filler; the ordering constraint is front-loaded and the filter options follow immediately. Every 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but with 0% schema coverage the description should have covered the limit/cap parameter and the date string format for 'journal day'. It is adequate but leaves gaps an agent may need to guess about.
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 the params. It clarifies status values (Todo, Doing, Done...), the inheritance semantics of tag, and that date means 'journal day', but leaves limit entirely unexplained despite its default of 50.
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 the resource clearly ('Tasks in the graph') and the ordering ('oldest first'), which an agent can use immediately. It doesn't name siblings like get_task or search, but the listing scope distinguishes it implicitly from the single-item get_task.
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 by enumerating the available filters (status, tag, journal day), which tells an agent what contexts this tool serves. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance, e.g., when to prefer search or get_task over listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.