list_tasklistsRetrieve task lists (columns/boards) from a Teamwork project. Filter by list name or paginate results to locate the right board for organizing or updating tasks.
List the task lists (columns/boards) inside a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| search | No | Filter by list name | |
| pageSize | No | ||
| projectId | Yes | Teamwork project id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds a small amount of context by equating task lists to 'columns/boards', but it discloses nothing about pagination, ordering, or response 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, focused sentence that front-loads the core operation and resource. The parenthetical clarification adds immediate value without waste.
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?
With no output schema and 50% parameter coverage, the description leaves important context missing: how pagination works, what the response looks like, and how search filters results. For an agent to invoke the tool correctly in non-trivial scenarios, additional field-level guidance is needed.
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 only 50%, with page and pageSize lacking descriptions. The tool description does not compensate by explaining these parameters, their defaults, or their interaction. It only indirectly implies projectId through 'inside a project'.
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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('task lists'), and a clear scope ('inside a project'). The parenthetical '(columns/boards)' clarifies the domain-specific meaning, distinguishing it from other list-type tools like list_projects or list_tasks.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_tasks or get_task. The phrase 'inside a project' implies the projectId requirement, but there is no explicit mention of search or pagination usage nor any exclusion of sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.