storedge-mcp

by sanjibani

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

list_tasks

List facility tasks, filterable by category. Use to view open maintenance tasks or overdue items.

Instructions

List tasks for the facility, optionally filtered by category.

Use when: "show me the open maintenance tasks", "list overdue tasks".

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": "list_tasks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`per_page`	No
`category_id`	No
`facility_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 are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only mentions optional filtering by category but lacks disclosure of pagination behavior, side effects, rate limits, or any constraints. The return format or performance implications are not addressed.

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?

The description is concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose and providing usage examples. No redundant information is present, though the brevity sacrifices necessary detail for other dimensions.

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 the presence of an output schema, the return format is implicitly covered, but the description fails to explain key parameters, pagination, or how the facility context is applied. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation support, the description is insufficiently complete.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description only vaguely references category filtering. Parameters like page, per_page, and facility_id are not explained at all, leaving the agent to infer their meaning solely from names and defaults.

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 clearly states the tool lists tasks for a facility with optional category filtering. However, it does not differentiate from other list tools among siblings, such as list_available_units or list_tenants, which share similar patterns.

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 provides concrete usage examples ('show me the open maintenance tasks', 'list overdue tasks'), indicating when to use. However, it does not specify when not to use or mention alternative tools, leaving gaps in guidance.

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