get_task_resultReturns the task's status and the GitHub repo link. The specialist's work (files, commits, diffs) lives in the repo — create_task already returns repo_url when the task had attachments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the two main outputs—status and repo link—and clarifies that files, commits, and diffs are not returned inline but live in the repo. It does not mention edge cases such as missing repo link or task-not-found behavior, but for a simple query tool the disclosure is minimally adequate.
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?
Two concise sentences with no filler, and the primary output (status + repo link) is front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by explaining where the specialist's actual work can be found.
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?
The description covers the core result and usefully points to the repo for files, commits, and diffs. However, with no output schema and a sibling named get_task_status, it should have clarified when get_task_result is preferred and what the response contains when no repo link exists.
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 0%, and the description does not mention task_id, its meaning, format, or how it relates to the returned result. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.
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 clearly states the verb 'Returns' and the resource: the task's status and GitHub repo link. It also adds useful context that the specialist's work lives in the repo, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_task_status, which also likely returns status.
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: call this to get the task result and the repo link where the specialist's work is stored. The note about create_task returning repo_url when attachments exist hints at an alternative source, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus get_task_status or get_task_repo_files.
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.
The tools are mostly distinct: search_specialists, create_task, cancel_task, and get_task_repo_files each have clear, separate roles. However, get_task_result and get_task_status overlap somewhat since both report task status, though get_task_result additionally provides the repo link.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: create_task, cancel_task, get_task_status, get_task_result, get_task_repo_files, and search_specialists. The one non-get verb, search_specialists, still fits the same predictable convention.
Six tools is well-scoped for the hiring-specialist workflow: searching, creating, canceling, monitoring, retrieving results, and inspecting repo files. Each tool serves a necessary step without unnecessary expansion.
The core lifecycle is covered: find a specialist, create a task, cancel if needed, check status, retrieve results, and inspect files. Minor gaps exist such as no explicit task-listing tool or ability to update task details, but these are not obvious dead ends for the stated purpose.