Retrieve tasks for a specific Clockify project and workspace, with filters for name, active status, sorting, and pagination.
Lists tasks for a project within a workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| is_active | No | Maps to is-active. | |
| page_size | No | Maps to page-size. | |
| project_id | Yes | ||
| sort_order | No | ||
| sort_column | No | ||
| workspace_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does 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 never states that this is a read-only operation, how results are paginated, or whether filters combine, despite page/page_size/sort parameters implying paged reads.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of useful detail rather than trimming redundancy.
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?
For an 8-parameter, unannotated list tool with no output schema and thin schema descriptions, this definition omits pagination behavior, filtering semantics, and sort defaults. An agent cannot call it confidently without guessing.
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 only 25% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate but does not. It implies workspace_id/project_id scoping but says nothing about the name, is_active, page, page_size, sort_column, or sort_order parameters.
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 a specific verb (Lists) and resource (tasks) plus its scoping (for a project within a workspace). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_projects or list_time_entries beyond the resource noun.
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 indication of when to use this versus sibling list tools, no prerequisites, and no mention of pagination or filtering intent. The agent must infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.