Get one agentsgot task. Requires Bearer agt_… with tasks:read. Claiming/signing needs local stdio MCP.
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 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a real operational requirement: a Bearer agt_ token with the tasks:read scope. The closing sentence about claiming/signing needing local stdio MCP is relevant context about the tool's limits but is confusingly scoped to a read tool. It says nothing about what is returned, whether the call has side effects, or how failures surface.
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?
Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The auth requirement is well placed, but the trailing claiming/signing sentence is arguably misplaced on a read tool and adds ambiguity rather than clarity.
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 single-record read with no output schema, the definition covers the essential call prerequisites (auth scope) but leaves gaps an agent would want: what a task object contains, whether a missing taskId errors or returns empty, and the accepted ID format.
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?
There is one required parameter, taskId, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema contributes no meaning at all. The description does not state the expected format of taskId, whether it is an opaque ID or a human-readable slug, or where to obtain it, leaving the only parameter undocumented in both places.
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?
"Get one agentsgot task" names a specific verb (get) and resource (single task), which cleanly separates it from the list_tasks sibling. The only weakness is the odd/undefined qualifier "agentsgot," which an agent may not recognize, but the retrieval intent is unambiguous.
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 implied by "one" versus the sibling list_tasks, and the auth prerequisite is stated. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no statement about behavior for an unknown or unauthorized taskId, and no pointer to an alternative tool for enumeration.
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.