Lists all tasks within a workflow attempt with execution status and optional subtasks, helping you identify which steps succeeded or failed.
List all tasks within an attempt with their execution status
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| attempt_id | Yes | Attempt ID | |
| include_subtasks | No | Include subtasks (default: true) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies read-only, but nothing is said about permissions, pagination, ordering, or whether the attempt_id must belong to the caller; for a task-listing tool this leaves important operational context unstated.
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 efficient sentence with the core scope front-loaded. It is not padded, though it could have used one more clause to state the alternative or return shape.
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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits return shape, whether status is per-task or aggregate, and how subtasks are represented, which an agent would benefit from knowing.
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 both attempt_id and include_subtasks are documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about include_subtasks (e.g., nesting behavior) or attempt_id format, which is acceptable at baseline 3 but not more.
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 all tasks within an attempt') and adds the execution-status angle. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_task_logs or get_session_attempts.
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 on when to use this tool versus get_task_logs, get_session_attempts, or retry_attempt. The agent must infer that this is the task-enumeration step before fetching logs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.