work_get
Fetch one work item by id.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| work_id | Yes | Work item UUID |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Fetch one work item by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| work_id | Yes | Work item UUID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +trueOutput schema / propertiesRemoved value: -{
- "result": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ]
- }
-}Output schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "result"
-]Output schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-resultRemoved value: -trueDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys a read-only operation via 'Fetch', but does not mention error handling, idempotency, permissions, or other behavioral traits. Adequate for a simple get tool but not rich.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place.
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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the core behavior, the parameter schema fully documents the input, and no essential information is missing.
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 100% and already documents work_id as a UUID. The description adds no extra meaning beyond restating 'by id', so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
Description states a specific verb ('Fetch'), resource ('work item'), and identifier ('by id'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like work_list and work_create. The purpose is immediately unambiguous.
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 description implies usage when a single work item ID is known, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., vs. work_list). Context is implied rather than stated.
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.