get_task_historyGet the full status history of a task. Shows all status transitions with timestamps and reasons. Useful for understanding the task lifecycle progression. Requires authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | Yes | Your API key (m2m_...) | |
| taskId | Yes | Task ID to get history for |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, giving the safety profile. The description adds beyond this by noting 'Requires authentication' and specifying that it shows all transitions with timestamps and reasons, providing useful behavioral context not present in the annotations.
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 three sentences, each adding distinct value: what it does, what it shows, and why it's useful plus an auth requirement. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler, earning a perfect score.
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?
Though no output schema exists, the description conveys the return content well (status transitions, timestamps, reasons) and mentions authentication. While it doesn't explicitly cover ordering or pagination, for a simple read-only tool this is largely complete; a 5 would require more details on edge cases or return structure.
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?
Both parameters (apiKey, taskId) have full descriptions in the schema, so even though the description adds no parameter-specific details, the 100% schema coverage gives a baseline of 3. The description does not enhance or clarify the parameter semantics further.
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 it retrieves the full status history of a task, naming the resource and specific verb. It is specific about what it shows (status transitions with timestamps and reasons), but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool get_task_events, so it stops short of a 5.
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 'Useful for understanding the task lifecycle progression' provides an implied use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_task_events, nor any exclusions. This is minimal viable guidance.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there are overlapping pairs like fund_wallet and checkout_wallet_deposit (both create checkout URLs for wallet top-up) and cancel_physical_task vs cancel_task_with_settlement. Detailed descriptions and cross-references help, but the sheer number of similar actions creates misselection risk.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., get_*, list_*, approve_*). Minor deviations include inconsistent use of 'task' vs 'physical_task' in names and the awkward 'checkout_wallet_deposit', but overall the pattern is predictable.
54 tools is excessive for any server, even a complex platform. While each tool has a role, many are redundant or could be consolidated (e.g., wallet funding tools, multiple approval/cancel variations), making the set feel bloated and hard to navigate.
The tool set covers the full task lifecycle, escrow/direct settlement flows, wallet management, webhooks, support, and administrative functions. The only notable gap is the inability to update task details beyond location (description, deadline, etc.) after dispatch, but core workflows are well-covered.