Retrieve all Microsoft To Do task lists with IDs, display names, and well-known names to identify the correct list before reading or managing tasks.
List all Microsoft To Do task lists (id + displayName + wellknownListName).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; 'List all' weakly signals a read-only, non-mutating operation. It says nothing about pagination, result limits, ordering, or permissions, though the low risk of a zero-parameter read tool limits the cost of those omissions.
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 the verb and scope first and the return shape appended. No filler and nothing an agent must read past to act.
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?
With an output schema covering the return shape and no parameters to explain, the description is nearly sufficient. The only real gap is the absence of any routing hint toward todo_find_list, which matters given how many list-related siblings exist.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the parenthetical naming the returned fields adds a small amount of useful context.
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 Microsoft To Do task lists) and names the fields returned. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling todo_find_list, leaving the agent to infer the distinction between enumerating all lists and finding a specific one.
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 word 'all' implies this is the enumeration path, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of todo_find_list as the alternative when the agent already knows the list name or id. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.