task_listRetrieve project tasks by status with optional result limits, enabling clear tracking of workflow progress and prioritization for efficient project management.
列出项目任务，可按状态筛选。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| project_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 no behavioral details beyond 'listing' and 'filtering' – no mention of pagination, return format, or permissions. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description contributes nothing extra about 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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately states the filtering capability. Perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The tool has three parameters, one required, and no output schema. The description covers the filtering aspect but does not explain the required project_id or the limit behavior. It also does not describe the return value (list of tasks). While the tool is simple, the missing parameter explanations and return format make it incomplete for an agent that needs to call it correctly.
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 must compensate. It does mention '可按状态筛选', which maps to the status parameter, but it does not explain project_id (required) or limit (pagination). The schema provides defaults and enum, but the description adds minimal value for these parameters. It partially compensates for status but not for the others.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('列出') and resource ('项目任务'), and adds the filtering capability ('可按状态筛选'), which distinguishes it from task creation/update siblings. Even though the title is '查看任务列表', the description is more informative and specific.
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 implies the use case: when you need to list project tasks. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context of a list operation is clear. It lacks guidance on when not to use it (e.g., when you need to create or update tasks), but the sibling names provide some implicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.