Show saved task steps from a workspace, optionally including drift changes. Inspect a specific step by index or navigate with cursor and limit.
列出任务层步骤；include_drift=true 时同时列出变更层。index 可精确查看单步。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root | Yes | 工作区根目录 | |
| index | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| task_id | No | 任务 id。省略时使用当前活动任务 | |
| include_drift | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| head | Yes | ||
| steps | Yes | ||
| drifts | No | ||
| next_cursor | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the effect of include_drift and that index views a single step, but it doesn't describe return value structure, pagination behavior, or side effects (none expected). It covers some behavior but is incomplete given the absence of 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?
The description is two short sentences, front-loading the main purpose and then adding a key option. Every word contributes, with no wasted text.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema and 6 parameters, the description is moderately complete. It covers the main use and two key parameters, but because there are no annotations, it should also explain the output format (though output schema exists) and the effects of limit/cursor for pagination, which are missing.
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 only 33%: only root and task_id have descriptions. The description adds meaning to index (precise viewing of a single step) and include_drift (lists change layer too), which helps. However, it doesn't explain limit and cursor parameters, but the description partially compensates for the coverage gap.
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 the primary purpose ('列出任务层步骤') and mentions the optional include_drift to also list the change layer, which distinguishes it from siblings that likely manage tasks rather than view them. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with them, so it's clear but lacks explicit differentiation.
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 implies usage for listing task steps and mentions when to use include_drift, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like tc_switch or tc_save. It provides some context but lacks clear exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.