Get detailed information about a single task, including assignees and dependencies.
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": {
"taskId": "<taskId>"
},
"name": "get_task"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes | Task ID (UUID) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the information returned but omits any note about read-only nature, error behavior, or authentication requirements, though 'get' implies a safe read operation.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no superfluous words. It is admirably compact.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides a basic overview but does not fully specify the return structure or tie it to usage context. It names two included fields but leaves 'detailed information' vague, so a score of 3 reflects the gap.
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 input schema already documents taskId with a clear description (UUID), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so a baseline of 3 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?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with resource 'single task' and details what information is included (assignees, dependencies), clearly distinguishing from sibling list_tasks or get_critical_path.
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 phrase 'single task' provides clear context that this tool is for retrieving one specific task, implying it should be used instead of list_tasks for detailed views. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.