get_inbox_tasksFetch tasks from the OmniFocus inbox perspective to review captured items. Set hideCompleted to false to include completed tasks.
Get tasks from OmniFocus inbox perspective
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hideCompleted | No | Set to false to show completed tasks in inbox (default: true) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| meta | No | ||
| tool | Yes | ||
| success | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as how the inbox perspective is defined, whether it includes project tasks or only loose tasks, or any rate limits or side effects. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds minimal extra value, making a 3 appropriate.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is nothing unnecessary.
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 tool with one parameter and an output schema (which is present but not shown in the description), the description is sufficiently complete for calling the tool. The agent knows what it does and how to use the parameter. The only gap is the absence of usage guidance, but that falls under dimension 2 rather than completeness for a single invocation.
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 single parameter hideCompleted is fully documented in the input schema with its meaning and default. Schema coverage is 100%, and the description does not add any additional semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline for high coverage is 3, and there is no extra value added.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Get tasks from OmniFocus inbox perspective.' It clearly identifies the action and the specific perspective. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like get_flagged_tasks or get_forecast_tasks, which follow a similar pattern, so it's clear but not distinct.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of other inbox-related perspectives, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisites or typical use cases. Agents are left to infer that this is the tool for the inbox perspective among many similar get-* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.