Skip to main content
Glama
rafadepaula

@rafadepaula/clickup-mcp

by rafadepaula
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

clickup_filter_tasks

Retrieve ClickUp tasks using combined filters such as tags, lists, statuses, assignees, due dates, and custom fields, with OR within each filter and AND across filters.

Instructions

Retrieve tasks with combined filters (tags, lists, folders, spaces, statuses, assignees, due date range, completion date range, custom field values). Multiple values within a filter use OR logic; across filters, AND logic applies (custom_fields entries also AND together). Best for filtering tasks by structured field values. For text/keyword search across all workspace content, use search instead. Custom field filters need field IDs — discover them with clickup_get_custom_fields. Results are paginated at 100 tasks per page: the response includes has_more and next_page, and when has_more is true you MUST call again with page set to next_page (repeating until has_more is false) to retrieve every matching task — a single call is not guaranteed to be complete. Assignees must be numeric user IDs — use clickup_resolve_assignees to convert names/emails/"me". Date filters use YYYY-MM-DD. For a single task by ID, use clickup_get_task.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo0-indexed page number. Each page returns up to 100 tasks. When a response has has_more=true, request the next page using its next_page value, and keep going until has_more=false to retrieve every matching task.
tagsNoFilter by tag names. Multiple tags use OR logic (matches tasks with ANY of the specified tags).
reverseNoSort ascending (oldest first) instead of the default descending (newest first). Leave unset/false to get the most recently created/updated tasks first.
list_idsNoFilter by List IDs. Multiple IDs use OR logic (matches tasks in ANY of the specified lists).
order_byNoSort results by field. Default direction is descending — newest first for created/updated. Set reverse: true for ascending (oldest first).
statusesNoFilter by task status names. Multiple statuses use OR logic (matches tasks with ANY of the specified statuses).
subtasksNoInclude subtasks in results (default: true)
assigneesNoFilter by assignee user IDs. Multiple IDs use OR logic. Use clickup_resolve_assignees to convert names/emails/"me" first.
space_idsNoFilter by Space IDs. Multiple IDs use OR logic (matches tasks in ANY of the specified spaces).
folder_idsNoFilter by Folder IDs. Multiple IDs use OR logic (matches tasks in ANY of the specified folders).
due_date_toNoFilter tasks with due date on or before. Format: YYYY-MM-DD
workspace_idNoWorkspace ID (digits only). Only needed when you have multiple workspaces.
custom_fieldsNoFilter by custom field values. Entries combine with AND (and with all other filters).
due_date_fromNoFilter tasks with due date on or after. Format: YYYY-MM-DD
date_closed_toNoFilter tasks completed on or before. Format: YYYY-MM-DD
include_closedNoInclude closed tasks in results
date_closed_fromNoFilter tasks completed on or after. Format: YYYY-MM-DD

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the OR-within / AND-across filter semantics, the 100-per-page pagination contract with has_more/next_page and the mandatory repeat loop, and the silent-failure trap where one bad field_id drops all custom field filters. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent would otherwise get wrong.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads purpose, then filter logic, then alternatives and prerequisites, then pagination. Density is justified by 17 parameters, though the pagination warning is stated twice within the paragraph (once in prose, once in the parenthetical loop instruction) and could be tightened.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 17-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description covers the gaps that matter: pagination completeness, filter logic, ID-resolution prerequisites, and dispatch to sibling tools. Return-value shape is partially covered via has_more/next_page, which is the only output structure the agent must reason about.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real cross-parameter meaning: the OR-within/AND-across combination rule, the requirement for numeric assignee IDs with a named resolver tool, and the YYYY-MM-DD date convention. It stops short of covering the operator/value semantics, which the schema already handles well.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Retrieve tasks with combined filters') and enumerates the filter dimensions, then explicitly distinguishes itself from clickup_search (keyword) and clickup_get_task (single task by ID). An agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

States when to use it ('Best for filtering tasks by structured field values'), when not to (text/keyword search → search; single task → clickup_get_task), and prerequisites with the exact sibling tools to call first (clickup_get_custom_fields for field IDs, clickup_resolve_assignees for assignee IDs).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools