ChatGPT–DSH Bridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List DSH tasks

dsh_list_tasks

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists DSH tasks retained by this server process, newest first, so you can recover a task ID for monitoring or retrieval; task state is in memory and resets on restart.

Instructions

List the bounded set of DSH tasks retained by this MCP server process, newest first. Use to recover a task id; task state is in memory and does not survive a server restart.

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": "dsh_list_tasks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`count`	Yes
`tasks`	Yes
`max_tasks`	Yes
`active_count`	Yes
`max_concurrent_tasks`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Nov 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the listing is bounded, and task state is in-memory and lost on server restart, which materially affects how an agent should treat returned ids. It does not quantify the bound or say what happens at capacity.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, zero filler, with the scope and ordering front-loaded before the usage hint and lifecycle caveat. Every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a no-parameter listing tool, the description covers scope, ordering, intended use, and the critical ephemerality caveat — nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering, pagination, or ordering options exist, matching the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the bounded set of DSH tasks') plus the scope ('retained by this MCP server process') and ordering ('newest first'), which lets an agent distinguish it from the per-task siblings like dsh_get_status and dsh_get_result. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, which keeps it below a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a concrete selection cue: 'Use to recover a task id.' That tells an agent when this tool is the right entry point before calling status/result/cancel tools. No explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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

Deploy Server