Retrieve open, unfiled tasks from the Marvin Inbox, sorted oldest first, to review uncategorized work. Optionally set a limit to control how many tasks are returned.
Open tasks in the Inbox (not filed in any category/project), oldest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | matches before `limit` was applied | |
| tasks | Yes | ||
| truncated | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses ordering ('oldest first') and scope filtering, which are behavioral facts not derivable from the input schema. It does not mention sorting overrides, pagination behavior, or whether 'open' excludes completed tasks, but the coverage is solid for a lookup tool with an output schema.
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?
Single sentence, zero waste, and the scope constraint is front-loaded so the agent grasps the semantic boundary immediately. Every clause earns its place.
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?
With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values. It covers scope and ordering, which is nearly complete for a list-lookup tool. The minor gap is not explaining what 'open' means (e.g., excludes done tasks) or how limit interacts with ordering.
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?
Only one optional parameter (limit) and schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but the parameter is largely self-explanatory. It adds the implicit default ordering context ('oldest first') that the limit applies to, though it doesn't explain the limit's behavior. Baseline 4 for a single-param tool is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb (list) and resource (Inbox tasks), and adds a precise scope constraint: not filed in any category/project. This distinguishes it from list_today, list_due, and search_tasks without needing to open a schema.
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 'not filed in any category/project' constraint implies when this tool applies versus other list_* tools, but it never names an alternative or states an explicit when-not-to-use. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.