List recent background tasks with optional text and status filters to monitor queued, running, cancelled, failed, or finished jobs.
Recent tasks (admin): filter by text or status (0 queued, 1 running, 2 cancelled, 3 failed, 4 finished)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| max | No | ||
| status | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with that by describing a read-only listing operation. It adds value beyond annotations by defining the status code semantics (0-4) and the admin scope, which helps the agent understand the data being returned and the tool's intended audience. There is no contradiction.
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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Recent tasks (admin)') and then provides the key filtering capabilities. Every word contributes value, with no filler or redundancy. It is highly efficient and easy to parse.
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 a simple list tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, its scope, and the meaning of the main filters. It does not describe return format or error behavior, but these are not critical for a straightforward list operation, and the status code mapping adds important context. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 compensate. It explains the 'q' parameter as text filtering and 'status' with the full mapping of numeric codes to human-readable states. However, it does not explain the 'max' parameter beyond its existence in the schema, leaving its semantics (maximum number of results) implicit. This is a partial compensation for the schema gap.
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's purpose: listing recent tasks, with an admin scope. It specifies the resource (tasks) and the action (list), and distinguishes itself from task-management siblings like spatial_run_task or spatial_cancel_task by focusing on listing. The filter options (text/status) further clarify its role.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like spatial_task_status. It implies a general listing use case with 'Recent tasks' and an admin note, but there is no explicit guidance on selecting this over other task-related tools. However, it is not misleading and the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer the primary use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.