View all tasks managed by the orchestrator, and filter by status (running, completed, failed, stopped) to track progress and identify issues.
列出所有由本 MCP Server 管理的任务。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status_filter | No | 按状态过滤，默认 all |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only states that the tool lists tasks. It does not disclose whether the result is paginated, ordered, read-only, or shaped in any particular way, nor does it mention potential side effects or absence thereof.
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, focused sentence with no filler. The key scope ('all tasks managed by this MCP Server') is front-loaded, making it immediately clear what the tool does.
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 tool is simple with only one optional parameter, so the description is nearly sufficient arbiter for basic invocation. However, it omits any mention of the optional status filter, output shape, or how this tool relates to get_task_status, leaving the agent to infer context from the schema and sibling names.
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 100%: the status_filter parameter already has an enum and a clear description with default value. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the filter, so it neither helps nor hurts beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb, '列出' (list), and a clear resource: '所有由本 MCP Server 管理的任务' (all tasks managed by this MCP Server). It clearly indicates a collection-level listing operation and is easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_task_status, which target individual tasks.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_task_status or dispatch_task. There is no explicit 'use this when...' context, no exclusions, and no mention of which sibling tool to prefer for single-task lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.