google_tasks_listRetrieve and filter tasks from a Google Tasks list, optionally by due date range or account, to review what needs doing next.
List tasks in a task list (default list if not specified).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Account nickname to use. | |
| dueAfter | No | Only tasks due at or after this RFC3339 datetime. | |
| dueBefore | No | Only tasks due at or before this RFC3339 datetime. | |
| tasklistId | No | Task list ID (default @default). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.60Input schema / properties / dueAfterAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Only tasks due at or after this RFC3339 datetime.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / dueBeforeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Only tasks due at or before this RFC3339 datetime.",
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.1.30Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that a default list is used when none is specified; there is no mention of pagination, result ordering, completion filtering, or auth requirements for a list endpoint that likely returns many rows.
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 tight sentence with the key scope ('in a task list') front-loaded. It is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.
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?
A simple read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, with zero annotations and no output schema, the absence of any pagination or result-shape context leaves a gap for an agent calling a potentially large list endpoint.
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 all four parameters (account, dueAfter, dueBefore, tasklistId) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond restating the tasklistId default, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('List tasks in a task list') that clearly identifies the operation. It implicitly distinguishes itself from google_tasks_list_lists (which lists the containers), but does not name that sibling or otherwise explicitly differentiate.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus google_tasks_list_lists or the other task tools. The parenthetical about a default list is a behavioral hint, not usage guidance or an alternative-selection rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.