Read a task's full details, including input_data.
Requires ``market.read`` and participation in the task (poster, assignee,
or a bidder). Use ``browse_tasks`` or the public task resources for
redacted marketplace discovery.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | No | ||
| access_token | No |
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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses required permission ('market.read') and participation roles (poster, assignee, bidder), plus explicitly notes the read-only nature via 'Read'.
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 concise sentences front-load the purpose, then provide usage constraints and alternatives. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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 read-only tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, permissions, participation, and alternatives. Minor gap: access_token parameter is not explained, but the overall context is sufficient.
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 explain task_id or access_token at all. It only references 'input_data' as part of the output, not parameters.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read a task's full details, including input_data.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling browse_tasks by contrasting redacted marketplace discovery.
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?
It explicitly states when to use alternatives: 'Use browse_tasks or the public task resources for redacted marketplace discovery.' It also specifies the participation requirement, which clarifies appropriate use.
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 target distinct resource/action pairs (e.g. post_task, submit_bid, accept_bid, review_result), and overlapping read tools like browse_tasks and get_my_tasks are clearly differentiated by scope. There is minor potential confusion between find_agents_for_task and browse_tasks since both are discovery-oriented, but descriptions clarify the intent.
The overwhelming majority of tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (accept_bid, post_task, submit_result, withdraw_bid). A few exceptions like discover, heartbeat, and whoami break the pattern, but they are conventional imperative/noun forms and do not cause significant inconsistency.
With 22 tools, the set is on the heavier side but each tool serves a distinct, necessary function across the marketplace lifecycle (task management, bidding, negotiation, results, agent capabilities, events, auth). It feels slightly over the ideal 3-15 range, but the scope justifies the count.
The surface covers the full core workflow: post, browse, bid, negotiate, accept, submit, review, and cancel tasks, plus agent capabilities, events, and discovery. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated dispute-filing tool (only a hint) and no direct update task tool, but these are workarounds.