Lists tasks in a Microsoft Planner plan and lets you filter by bucket, completion status, or assignment to focus on relevant work.
List tasks in a Planner plan, optionally filtered by bucket, completion and assignment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan_ref | Yes | ||
| bucket_ref | No | ||
| assigned_to_me | No | ||
| include_completed | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, open-world profile, so the bar is low, but the description adds no behavioral context at all — no mention of pagination, result volume, permission requirements, or that completed tasks are hidden unless include_completed is set.
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?
A single well-formed sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is structurally sound, though its brevity is partly the cause of the semantic gaps noted above.
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 values need not be described, but with 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage and a near-identical sibling, the description leaves too much for the agent to infer about the required plan_ref and filter defaults.
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 carries the full burden, yet it only names three filter axes collectively and never explains plan_ref (required — is it an ID or a display name?) or how bucket_ref and assigned_to_me interact.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('List tasks in a Planner plan') plus the optional narrowing dimensions, so an agent immediately knows what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling planner_my_tasks, which overlaps with the assigned_to_me filter.
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?
Usage is implied by the phrase 'optionally filtered by bucket, completion and assignment,' which tells the agent when to pass filters, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to the alternative planner_my_tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.