Get a single standalone task by its readable key (e.g. "WR-12"). Use get_standalone_task instead if you already have the internal id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | The task's readable key, e.g. "MF-12" — the project's key prefix plus its task number. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / key / descriptionAdded value: +"The task's readable key, e.g. \"MF-12\" — the project's key prefix plus its task number."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the distinction between readable key and internal id, but does not disclose additional behavior such as error handling, return shape, or behavior when the key does not exist. This is acceptable but not richly transparent.
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?
Two concise sentences: the first states the purpose with an example, and the second provides the routing alternative. There is no redundant wording or filler.
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 simple single-parameter read-only tool, the description is complete. It specifies what the tool does, how the key is identified, and when to use the sibling alternative. Without an output schema, an agent still knows the operation is a retrieval of one standalone task.
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%, so the schema already documents the single 'key' parameter. The description reinforces that it is the 'readable key' with an example, but adds no meaning beyond the schema's own description.
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 the tool's action: 'Get a single standalone task by its readable key,' with a concrete example ('WR-12'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_standalone_task by specifying that this tool is key-based rather than id-based.
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 explicitly says to use get_standalone_task instead when the internal id is already available. This gives the agent a clear routing rule between the two similar sibling tools.
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.