Skip to main content
Glama

Asana

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Asana Get Task

asana_get_task
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get full task details including name, description, assignee, projects, tags, subtasks, and status. Requires task ID.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_gidYesTask GID

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gidNoTask GID
nameNoTask name
tagsNoTags attached to task
notesNoTask description/notes
due_atNoDue datetime with time
due_onNoDue date in YYYY-MM-DD format
assigneeNoTask assignee
projectsNoProjects containing this task
completedNoTask completion status
created_atNoTask creation timestamp
modified_atNoTask modification timestamp
num_subtasksNoNumber of subtasks
permalink_urlNoTask permalink URL

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "assignee": {
+      "description": "Task assignee",
+      "properties": {
+        "name": {
+          "description": "Assignee name",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "completed": {
+      "description": "Task completion status",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "created_at": {
+      "description": "Task creation timestamp",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "due_at": {
+      "description": "Due datetime with time",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "due_on": {
+      "description": "Due date in YYYY-MM-DD format",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "gid": {
+      "description": "Task GID",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "modified_at": {
+      "description": "Task modification timestamp",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "description": "Task name",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "notes": {
+      "description": "Task description/notes",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "num_subtasks": {
+      "description": "Number of subtasks",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "permalink_url": {
+      "description": "Task permalink URL",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "projects": {
+      "description": "Projects containing this task",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "name": {
+            "description": "Project name",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "tags": {
+      "description": "Tags attached to task",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "name": {
+            "description": "Tag name",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "task_gid": "1234567890123456"
+  }
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by listing the specific data returned (e.g., subtasks, tags), but does not mention error conditions or side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no fluff. The most critical information (purpose and requirement) is front-loaded. Every word adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It lists the main fields covered, and the parameter is simple. The tool is low complexity, and the description is fully adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter task_gid is fully covered by the schema description ('Task GID'). The description repeats this as 'Requires task ID' without adding new semantic meaning, so it meets the baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get full task details'), specifies the resource (task), and lists included fields (name, description, assignee, etc.). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like asana_list_tasks or asana_create_task.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions 'Requires task ID' but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternatives like asana_search_tasks. The context is implied but not clearly delineated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Asana toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources