Retrieve pending task cards for a specific runner, with optional topic filtering, as raw output and parsed JSONL rows.
Return pending cards for a specific runner as raw output plus parsed JSONL rows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | No | ||
| runner | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral context. It discloses that the tool returns both raw output and parsed JSONL rows, which is useful, but it does not state read-only safety, permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause contributes to the core purpose and output format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return details need not be repeated, but the description omits usage guidance and ignores the optional 'topic' parameter entirely. For a two-parameter task tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, this is too thin.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is responsible for explaining parameters. It clarifies that 'runner' selects a specific runner, but it says nothing about the optional 'topic' parameter, leaving half of the parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb ('Return'), resource ('pending cards'), and scope ('for a specific runner'), plus output format. It does not name or distinguish itself from any sibling tool such as aiworkhub_task_list, so it stops short of the 5-level sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The phrase 'for a specific runner' only implies the basic scenario and does not help an agent choose between this and other task-listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.