project-manager

by samrullo

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

pm_list_tasks

Retrieve tasks from projects with filters for status, priority, owner, tags, overdue, or starred items.

Instructions

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "pm_list_tasks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tag_id`	No
`priority`	No
`x_user_id`	No
`project_id`	No
`task_status`	No
`overdue_only`	No
`starred_only`	No
`owner_user_id`	No
`parent_task_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose read-only nature, authentication requirements, pagination, or other behaviors. The GET method implies read-only, but this is not explicit.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it sacrifices completeness. It is not structured to highlight multiple aspects effectively, and every sentence should provide more value.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 9 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema not provided, the description is very incomplete. It only covers two filters and lacks information about return type, behavior, and other parameters.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must add value. It provides allowed values for two parameters (task_status and priority) which the schema lacks. However, the other 7 parameters receive no explanation, making the addition partial.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description specifies 'GET /tasks' which clearly indicates a list operation, and mentions filters. It is specific enough to understand the tool's purpose, though it could be more explicit about retrieving tasks.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 like pm_get_task or other list tools. The description only states that filters are optional, lacking context for proper selection.

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

Deploy Server