List available task templates to see what each creates. Optionally include task definitions to know exactly what tasks they set up.
List task templates. Pass include_tasks to see what each one actually creates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_tasks | No | Return each template's task definitions, not just a count. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.0Input schema / properties / include_tasksAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Return each template's task definitions, not just a count.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v1.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, covering the safety profile. The description adds a small behavioral note that include_tasks reveals what each template actually creates, which is useful context beyond the raw schema. There is no contradiction between the description and the annotations.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter guidance is neatly separated. 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?
This is a simple, low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and comprehensive annotations. The description covers the tool's purpose and the optional parameter's effect. It does not describe the default return shape, but that is a minor gap given no output schema exists and the parameter schema already implies a count-based default.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by framing include_tasks as revealing what each template 'actually creates,' which clarifies its purpose more naturally than the schema's 'task definitions, not just a count.' This goes slightly beyond the schema without repeating it.
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 and resource: 'List task templates.' The resource is clearly distinguished from related tools like task_list, template_create, and template_apply. The additional sentence about include_tasks reinforces what the tool is for, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 gives an implied usage context: use this tool to inspect templates, and optionally pass include_tasks to see their task definitions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but among the siblings no other tool lists task templates, so the intended context is reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.