get_tasksFetch company tasks and to-dos, filtering by priority or completion status to find outstanding items.
Get tasks and to-dos for the company.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 20) | |
| priority | No | Filter: low, medium, high, urgent | |
| completed | No | Filter by completion status |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral details, such as default return behavior, pagination, or what data is included. It doesn't contradict annotations, but also contributes nothing beyond them.
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, efficient sentence with no redundant or extraneous words. It is appropriately concise, though it is minimal enough that it borders on under-specification, which is more a completeness issue than a conciseness issue.
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 tool with no output schema, the description fails to explain the return format or any behavioral nuances. It does not mention what fields a task includes, how pagination works (despite the limit parameter), or any caveats. Given the simple nature of the tool, this is a notable gap in completeness.
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 100%, so the parameters (limit, priority, completed) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the weight.
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 the verb 'get' and the resource 'tasks and to-dos' with a scope of 'for the company.' It is specific enough to identify the tool's purpose, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling read tools like get_goals or get_expenses. The name itself is also informative.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, such as 'use this to list tasks' or compare with create_task or other retrieval tools. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.