Retrieve tasks from a readable space to inspect pending work, filtered by status, type, or limit. Use it to find available items before claiming them in a shared agent queue.
List tasks of a readable space.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| space | 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 already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add context beyond safety. It adds none: it never mentions pagination behavior, defaults, or result ordering despite a `limit` parameter implying paged output.
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, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than efficiently concise.
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 4-parameter listing tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation anywhere, the description is too thin. An agent cannot determine valid values for type/status or how limit/space affect results.
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% across 4 parameters (type, limit, space, status) with no enums. The description only alludes to "space" and explains none of the other three, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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 verb+resource ("List tasks") is present, but the qualifier "of a readable space" uses undefined terminology and does not distinguish this tool from the sibling list_runnable_tasks, which also lists tasks. The core purpose is inferable but the scope is vague.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. Given the crowded sibling set (list_runnable_tasks, get_task), the description gives the agent nothing to route on.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.