Retrieve task lists from Google Tasks. Get all task IDs and manage pagination efficiently to view every list in your account.
List one page of task lists with exact IDs. Names need not be unique; continue using next_page_token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page_size | No | ||
| page_token | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_lists | Yes | ||
| next_page_token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description confirms the paged nature of the call ('one page') and the use of tokens for iteration, which are behavioral traits not fully captured by the structured hints alone. The presence of `readOnlyHint: true` suggests safety, and the description focuses on retrieval mechanics.
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 highly concise, fitting two points of information into two short, direct sentences that focus entirely on functional constraints and pagination behavior.
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?
While it explains pagination, the description is incomplete for a 2-parameter tool. It doesn't clarify the expected format of the page token or what the returned data structure contains beyond IDs and names. A minimal 'how-to-use' guide is missing.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description is the primary source of semantic meaning. It mentions 'one page' and 'exact IDs', which hints at how `page_size` and the results are delivered. However, it doesn't explain the format of the 'exact IDs' or how the token is provided/returned.
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 clearly states the tool lists 'task lists' and provides two specific, actionable data points: 'exact IDs' and 'one page'. Although the title is null, the description functions well to define the core action.
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?
It explicitly addresses navigation through the entire dataset by stating that names might not be unique and instructs the user to use the `next_page_token` for subsequent calls. This provides excellent guidance on repetitive execution.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.