google_tasks_list_listsRetrieve all Google Tasks lists for a specified account, with pagination support via page tokens. Use it to discover task list IDs before managing tasks.
List the account's Google Tasks lists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Account nickname to use. | |
| pageToken | No | Page token from a previous result's nextPageToken. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.95Input schema / properties / pageTokenAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Page token from a previous result's nextPageToken.",
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.1.30Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers almost nothing beyond the name. It does not state that the call is read-only, that results are paginated (pageToken exists only in the schema), what the default account behavior is, or roughly what a result contains.
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 waste, which is the right shape for a simple list operation. It is efficient but also so terse that the brevity costs it on other 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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only place to explain that the response is a paged collection of list objects with ids and titles. None of that is present, leaving the agent without enough to plan the follow-up call reliably.
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%, so both 'account' and 'pageToken' are fully documented in the schema, and the description adds no parameter meaning of its own. The baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 the account's Google Tasks lists'), so the agent knows it enumerates task lists rather than tasks. However, it never disambiguates from the very similarly named sibling 'google_tasks_list', which lists tasks inside a list; a one-clause note would have made the distinction airtight.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the natural next step (use google_tasks_list with a returned list id), and no exclusion against the similarly named task-listing sibling. The agent must infer the whole workflow from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.