Retrieve project tasks with optional filters for status, assignee, or search terms to quickly find relevant work items.
List tasks for the project. Optionally filter by status, assignee, or search term.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of tasks to return | |
| search | No | Search in task title and description | |
| status | No | Filter by status (todo, in_progress, done, cancelled) | |
| assigneeId | No | Filter by assignee user ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The verb 'list' and the absence of any mutation language make it clear this is a read-only operation. No annotations are provided, but the description carries enough transparency for the expected behavior. It does not detail potential side effects, but none are anticipated for a listing tool.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action ('List tasks') and then lists optional filters. There is no redundant or extraneous information, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 operation, the description is sufficiently complete. It defines the scope (project tasks) and available filters. It does not mention results ordering, default limit, or pagination, but these are not essential for the core use case. The description covers the necessary context for an agent to decide when and how to use the tool.
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 100% with all four parameters (limit, search, status, assigneeId) having descriptions. The description's summary of filters adds a small amount of context beyond the schema, but it largely restates the parameter descriptions. Since the schema already handles semantics, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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: 'List tasks for the project.' It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like get_task (single task) and create_task/update_task (mutations). The optional filters are mentioned, giving a concise summary of capabilities.
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 usage (when you need a collection of tasks) and mentions optional filters, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_task for single tasks or start_work_on_task for work sessions. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, so it's adequate but not highly instructive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.