List durable tasks by filtering on state or project, ordered by priority then creation time. Use to track and manage queued, running, or completed tasks across agents.
List durable tasks filtered by state/project, ordered by priority then creation time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| states | No | ||
| project | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful ordering semantics ('priority then creation time') and filter dimensions, but does not describe pagination behavior, return format, or permission requirements.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and then adds filtering and ordering constraints. No wasted words.
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 read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It omits pagination/limit semantics and does not clarify the return shape, though the absence of an output schema lowers the burden.
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%, so the description must compensate. It maps to two of the three parameters by mentioning state and project filtering, but omits any explanation of the 'limit' parameter. It also says 'state' singular while the actual parameter is the array 'states', leaving some ambiguity despite the schema enum.
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 description states a specific verb and resource: 'List durable tasks.' It also specifies filtering and ordering, which helps distinguish it from task_status/task_stats. However, it does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from the many sibling task_* tools.
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?
The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives such as task_ready, task_next, or task_status. Usage is only loosely implied by the filtering and ordering behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.