Retrieve a list of tasks, optionally filtered by a specific project ID to narrow results.
List all tasks, optionally filtered by project
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"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | No | Filter by project ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It correctly conveys this is a read-only list operation and explains the optional filtering behavior. However, it does not disclose whether the result includes subtasks, whether completed tasks are included, or any default ordering. These are potential gaps, but the core behavior is transparent and not misleading.
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, front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies the action and resource. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, with no redundant words or filler.
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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is mostly complete. It states the purpose and the filter option. However, it could benefit from a note clarifying whether subtasks are included and how it relates to specialized sibling views like get_subtasks or get_today_tasks, which would make it fully self-contained.
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?
The input schema has one optional parameter (projectId) with a description 'Filter by project ID', and the tool description says 'optionally filtered by project'. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only reaffirms the parameter's purpose without extra context.
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 'List all tasks, optionally filtered by project' uses a specific verb (list) and resource (tasks) with clear scope ('all tasks'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_task (singular), get_subtasks (subtasks only), and get_today_tasks/get_upcoming_tasks (specialized views) by explicitly stating the all-encompassing scope without needing to name them.
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 implies when to use the tool: whenever you need to list tasks, optionally narrowing by projectId. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_today_tasks for due-date-specific views. The guidance is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.