List tasks in a Microsoft To Do list, with an optional status filter for not started, in progress, completed, waiting on others, or deferred.
List tasks in a list. Optional status filter (notStarted|inProgress|completed|waitingOnOthers|deferred).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| list_id | Yes |
| 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 full behavioral burden. It tells the agent this is a read operation and that filtering is optional, but it does not disclose pagination behavior despite a 'top' parameter defaulting to 100, nor result ordering, empty-list handling, 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause carries information. It is slightly compressed — the enum list is appended without explanation of default/null behavior — but there is no filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the status enum is a useful addition. Still, for a 3-parameter list tool with zero annotation coverage, the missing discussion of pagination ('top' default 100) and list_id semantics leaves the definition only minimally complete.
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, yet it only documents the status parameter's allowed values (which the schema itself does not enum-constrain). The required list_id and the 'top' parameter are left unexplained, including whether 'top' caps page size or how it interacts with pagination.
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 tasks') plus its scope ('in a list'), which clearly separates it from siblings like todo_get_task or todo_list_lists. It stops short of naming an alternative or clarifying contrast with planner_list_tasks, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.
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?
Usage is implied by 'in a list' and the optional status filter, so an agent can infer when it applies. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. needing a valid list_id), and no pointer to alternatives such as todo_find_list for locating a list first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.