Skip to main content
Glama

get_tasks

Retrieve tasks from OmniFocus with flexible filtering by status, tags, dates, and search, including support for recurring tasks and inherited properties.

Instructions

Get tasks with optional filtering.

Parameters:

  • task_id, parent_task_id, project_id: str

  • query: str -- search name/note

  • flagged_only, available_only, overdue, dropped_only, blocked_only, next_only, inbox_only: bool

  • include_completed: bool

  • include_full_notes: bool

  • tag_filter: list[str]; tag_filter_mode: str -- "and" (default), "or", "not"

  • due_after, due_before, due_on: str -- ISO date filters for due date

  • defer_after, defer_before, defer_on: str -- ISO date filters for defer date

  • planned_after, planned_before, planned_on: str

  • completion_after, completion_before, completion_on: str -- requires include_completed

  • dropped_after, dropped_before, dropped_on: str -- requires dropped_only or include_completed

  • modified_after, modified_before, modified_on, created_after, created_before, created_on: str

  • max_estimated_minutes: int -- quick wins filter

  • has_estimate: bool

  • recurring_only: bool

  • sort_by: str -- "name", "due_date", "defer_date", "planned_date", "creation_date", "modification_date", "completion_date", "dropped_date"; sort_order: str

Returns: id, name, projectName, completed, dropped, blocked, available, next, flagged, dueDate, deferDate, plannedDate, estimatedMinutes, tags, note, parentTaskId, subtaskCount, sequential, isRecurring, recurrence, repetitionMethod, repeatSummary, nextDueDate, nextDeferDate, nextPlannedDate, catchUpAutomatically, creationDate, modificationDate, completionDate, droppedDate.

Key fields:

  • available -- true when actionable (accounts for inherited status from containers)

  • repeatSummary -- human-readable recurrence; always use this for display, don't parse RRULE

  • repetitionMethod -- "fixed" (original schedule), "start_after_completion" (defer shifts), "due_after_completion" (due shifts)

  • catchUpAutomatically -- recurring only; true = one catch-up occurrence, false = each missed interval spawns its own

  • Date fields are effective (include inherited from project). Next-occurrence fields populated only for recurring tasks.

  • Tasks inherit tags from their parent project. A task showing a tag it wasn't explicitly assigned has inherited it -- this is expected, not a bug.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idNo
parent_task_idNo
include_full_notesNo
project_idNo
flagged_onlyNo
include_completedNo
available_onlyNo
overdueNo
dropped_onlyNo
blocked_onlyNo
next_onlyNo
tag_filterNo
queryNo
inbox_onlyNo
sort_byNo
sort_orderNoasc
modified_afterNo
modified_beforeNo
created_afterNo
created_beforeNo
max_estimated_minutesNo
has_estimateNo
recurring_onlyNo
tag_filter_modeNoand
planned_afterNo
planned_beforeNo
planned_onNo
due_afterNo
due_beforeNo
due_onNo
defer_afterNo
defer_beforeNo
defer_onNo
completion_afterNo
completion_beforeNo
completion_onNo
dropped_afterNo
dropped_beforeNo
dropped_onNo
created_onNo
modified_onNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: date fields are effective (inherit from project), tags may be inherited, and specific recurrence behaviors (e.g., repeatSummary should be used for display, not RRULE). This adds significant context beyond the schema, though it could mention pagination or default limits.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is lengthy but well-structured: a one-line summary, parameter list, return fields, and key field explanations. It front-loads the purpose. However, it could be more concise by omitting parameter names already in schema.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (41 parameters, rich return fields), the description covers most important aspects: inherited dates/tags, recurrence details, and field meanings. It is largely complete, though it omits potential behavior like pagination or result limits.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must add meaning. It lists all 41 parameters with types and minimal descriptions, plus crucial notes like 'requires include_completed' for completion filters. This adds value over the bare schema, though some parameters (e.g., sort_order) lack explanation of values.

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?

The description clearly states 'Get tasks with optional filtering,' identifying the verb (get), resource (tasks), and capability (filtering). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_tasks or delete_tasks, which have different purposes.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage by listing parameters for various filtering scenarios, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over others (e.g., for simple listing vs. complex queries). It lacks exclusion criteria or alternatives, making it adequate but not explicit.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/s-morgan-jeffries/omnifocus-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server