Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
codex-claude-bridge-mcp

codex-claude-bridge-mcp

by nevzoom
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_tasks

Retrieve tasks from the shared coordination board with optional status filtering to track project progress across Codex and Claude Code.

Instructions

List tasks in the shared coordination board.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_tasks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that it lists tasks. It does not mention that this is a read operation, what data is returned, whether the optional status filter limits results, or any ordering/pagination behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It clearly states the tool's purpose in a compact way, and every word contributes meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple but important context is missing. There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the returned task list contains. It also does not explain the optional status parameter, and the sibling read_messages tool suggests a need to differentiate this read operation from others.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not mention the optional 'status' filter or how it affects results. The enum values in the schema are self-descriptive, but the description adds no value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'List tasks in the shared coordination board' uses a specific verb ('list'), a clear resource ('tasks'), and a scope ('shared coordination board'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_task, update_task, and post_message.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies read-only task listing but does not mention conditions, exclusions, or how it differs from read_messages or other task-related tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools