Fetches all task lists with their IDs, enabling identification and management of specific lists.
Every task list with its id.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "tasks_lists"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small amount of behavioral context by stating the result is every task list with its id, but it does not discuss ordering, pagination, fields beyond id, or any additional runtime traits. No contradiction with 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 extremely terse and contains no filler. It is front-loaded and each word earns its place, but it is grammatically a noun phrase rather than a full sentence, which keeps it from being a perfect example of structured conciseness.
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?
For a zero-argument, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description conveys the core necessary information: all task lists and their ids. It could be more complete by clarifying how this compares to tasks_list or by noting other returned fields, but nothing essential is missing for direct invocation.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. No parameter explanation is necessary here.
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 resource is clear: all task lists, each with its id. The plural form of the name and the description distinguish this listing tool from the sibling tasks_list. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists', so it falls short of a 5.
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 over alternatives, and no sibling such as tasks_list is mentioned. The intended use-case might be inferred from the name and 'Every...', but it is never explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.