Lists tasks already registered with a team to help locate an existing task's ID and avoid creating duplicate tasks.
List the tasks already registered with this team, e.g. to find an existing task's id instead of creating a duplicate with create_task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It conveys a read-only nature through the verb 'List' and scopes the operation to the current team. However, it does not mention output format, pagination, or any limitations—minor for a simple listing but still a gap without annotations.
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 front-loads the core action, then adds a practical example and sibling contrast. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description covers the purpose, scope, and an important usage pattern. It could explicitly describe the return values, but the example ('find an existing task's id') implies the relevant output is included.
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 the description need not explain any parameter details. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description does not hurt this.
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 the tasks already registered with this team') and explicitly distinguishes itself from create_task, which is a sibling. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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?
It provides an explicit use case ('to find an existing task's id') and names the alternative (create_task) with the reason to prefer this tool ('instead of creating a duplicate'). This is a clear when/when-not guide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.