Fetch one task by id — status, worker, result, payment reference. Free.
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": {
"task_id": "<task_id>"
},
"name": "sidequest_get_task"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the returned fields (status, worker, result, payment reference) despite there being no output schema, and flags that the call is free. It omits error behavior for a missing/invalid task_id and any auth or rate-limit context.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the payload summary in the same breath. The 'Free.' fragment earns its place by conveying cost, and there is no filler.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the lookup key, the cost, and the return fields. Remaining gaps (invalid-id behavior, id format) are minor for this level of complexity.
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?
A single required parameter with 0% schema description coverage. 'By id' conveys that task_id is the lookup key, but adds no format, example, or source-of-id guidance beyond that minimal hint.
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: 'Fetch one task by id'. The word 'one' implicitly distinguishes it from sidequest_list_tasks, and it names the returned fields. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.
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?
Usage is only implied by the singular fetch framing and the 'Free' note, which hints this is the cheap read path compared to sidequest_run_task. There is no explicit when-to-use statement or exclusion against sidequest_list_tasks for browsing.
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.