Retrieve flagged tasks from OmniFocus, optionally filtered by project ID or name, to focus on priority items.
Get flagged tasks from OmniFocus with optional project filtering
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | No | Filter flagged tasks by project ID (alternative to projectFilter) | |
| hideCompleted | No | Set to false to show completed flagged tasks (default: true) | |
| projectFilter | No | Filter flagged tasks by project name (optional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: no read-only confirmation, no note on result volume, ordering, or whether completed flagged tasks are included by default (that detail lives only in the schema). 'Get' implies a read but nothing more is characterized.
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 filler. The core purpose and the optional filtering capability both land immediately.
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 no-param-required read tool with full schema coverage this is minimally adequate, but it says nothing about the returned tasks' shape or the default hideCompleted behavior, and offers no navigation to the many filtering siblings that overlap with it.
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 parameters are already documented; baseline 3 applies. The description mentions optional project filtering, which loosely maps to projectId/projectFilter but doesn't clarify when to prefer one over the other.
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+resource ('Get flagged tasks') plus the data source (OmniFocus), which is enough to separate it from siblings like get_inbox_tasks or get_forecast_tasks. It stops short of naming those siblings or stating scope explicitly.
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 guidance on when to use this versus filter_tasks, search_tasks, or get_tasks_by_tag, all of which could plausibly return flagged items. 'Optional project filtering' hints at the use case but nothing says when-not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.