big-brain

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List tasks

list_tasks

Find checkbox tasks across your vault, sorted by due date and priority. Filter by status, project, tag, or due-by date to see open work.

Instructions

List checkbox tasks across the vault, sorted by due date then priority. Filter by status (open/done/all), project, tag, or dueBy date.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_tasks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tag`	No
`dueBy`	No	Due on or before this date
`status`	No	Default 'open'
`project`	No	Only tasks in this project (title or path)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the sort order and the filtering axes, but says nothing about result size limits, pagination, performance over a large vault, or what a returned task row contains.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the scope and sort order front-loaded before the filter list. Nothing is repeated or padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, sort, and filters adequately. It falls short only on the missing 'tag' semantics and any hint about result volume or truncation.

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 75% (only 'tag' is undocumented), so the baseline is 3. The description restates the status values and the project/tag/dueBy filters but adds no semantics beyond the schema, and does not clarify what 'tag' matches or whether filters are ANDed.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List checkbox tasks') with explicit scope ('across the vault') and even the sort order ('due date then priority'), which is enough to separate it from list_notes, list_tags, and list_projects. It never names a sibling or states a contrast, 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The second sentence enumerates the narrowing dimensions (status, project, tag, dueBy), which implies when to filter, but there is no guidance on when to use this vs. list_notes/read_note or any exclusion. The default of 'open' only appears in the schema, not the description.

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