Google Workspace MCP

tasks_list

Read-only

List tasks from a specified Google Tasks list, with options to include completed items and set a maximum number of results.

Instructions

Tasks in a list. Completed ones are hidden unless you ask for them.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "tasklist": "<tasklist>"
    },
    "name": "tasks_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`max`	No
`tasklist`	Yes
`showCompleted`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds a meaningful behavioral detail: completed tasks are hidden unless requested. This is useful because an agent could otherwise assume the returned set is complete, when it is not by default.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is stated first, and the important filtering behavior is placed second. Every word contributes useful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only list tool with only three parameters, the description captures the essential behavior, and the schema covers requiredness and constraints. However, there is no output schema, no explanation of what the tasklist parameter expects, and no mention of pagination or return shape, leaving some gaps in end-to-end usability.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

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 burden of explaining parameters. It only indirectly references showCompleted ('unless you ask for them'), leaving tasklist and max unexplained. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description itself adds minimal semantic value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the resource as tasks contained in a list, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like tasks_lists. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieves' or 'lists', but the tool name plus 'Tasks in a list' make the purpose reasonably clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool: when you need tasks that belong to a particular list. It also implies that completed tasks require an explicit request via showCompleted. However, it gives no explicit guidance about alternatives or when not to use it, such as referencing tasks_lists for finding list identifiers.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.