get_taskOne task by id.
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "get_task"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Task id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that: no statement about not-found behavior, visibility/permission scoping, or whether it returns the full task object.
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 words with no filler and the key concept front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness tips into under-specification rather than optimal structure.
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?
A one-parameter read tool with full annotations and full schema coverage needs little, so the minimal description is nearly sufficient. The miss is failure-mode context (unknown id) and whether the response is the full task record, which matters since there is no output schema.
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 coverage is 100% for the single id parameter, so the schema carries the load. 'By id' restates the parameter rather than adding format or sourcing detail (e.g. where to obtain the id, as from list_tasks).
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?
"One task by id" identifies the resource (a single task) and the key (id), which implicitly separates it from the sibling list_tasks. But it uses no verb and never says 'retrieve' or 'fetch', so the purpose is inferred rather than stated.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus list_tasks or catch_up, and no mention of what happens if the id is unknown. The agent must guess the selection criteria from the sibling name alone.
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.