List all tasks in a specified TaScan event (task list) by passing list_id, enabling you to review and manage tasks within that event.
List all tasks in an event (task list)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list_id | Yes | Task list (event) ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.12.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the event/task list scoping, but doesn't disclose any further behavioral details such as output shape or pagination. With annotations present, the added value is modest.
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 that states the action and scope with no filler. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple list tool with one well-documented parameter and strong annotations, the description is largely complete. It clearly identifies the target resource and scope, though it might ideally mention that it returns a list of task records. No output schema exists, so the description carries that burden, but the intent is unambiguous.
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?
The input schema fully documents list_id as 'Task list (event) ID' with 100% coverage. The tool description merely echoes this relationship ('in an event (task list)') and adds no new semantic information beyond the schema.
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 'List all tasks in an event (task list)' uses a specific verb (List) and resource (tasks in an event/task list), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_events or get_task. The parenthetical clarifies the scoping.
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?
The description clearly implies when to use this tool (when you need all tasks within a specific event/task list), but it doesn't explicitly state alternatives or situations where another tool should be used. This is clear context without exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.