Retrieve tasks from the task board, optionally filtering by category, status, or tags to focus on relevant work.
List tasks with optional filtering by category, status, or tags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | Filter by tags (all must match) | |
| status | No | Filter by status | |
| category | No | Filter by category |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about pagination, sorting, default limits, authentication needs, or the shape of returned data, leaving key behavioral traits unspecified.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's action and the optional filter dimensions.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool and rich parameter schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should do more to explain usage context and what the tool returns, leaving noticeable gaps.
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%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description merely restates the filter fields without adding any meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3.
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 and resource ('List tasks') and names the optional filtering dimensions. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like display_task_board or get_task, but the core purpose is clear.
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 only mentions optional filtering; it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as display_task_board, get_task, or the various summary/recommendation tools. Usage is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.