sellsy_get_taskGet one task by id. Needs tasks.read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Task id. | |
| embed | No | Related objects to include (each may need an extra scope and is null without it), e.g. ["invoicing_address","main_contact","cf.1542"]. | |
| field | No | Only return these fields, e.g. ["id","name"] or ["address.id"], to keep replies small. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile comes for free. The description's one addition is the required scope (tasks.read), which is useful but thin; it says nothing about what is returned or how embedded objects behave.
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 sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded ahead of the permission note.
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 single-record read with a fully documented schema there is little left to cover, and the scope requirement is stated. With no output schema, a hint about the returned task shape would close the last gap.
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%, including the non-obvious embed and field parameters and their scope caveat, so the schema carries the load. The description adds nothing about id semantics beyond echoing the schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: "Get one task by id." That implicitly distinguishes it from sellsy_list_tasks and sellsy_search_tasks, though neither alternative is named.
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?
"Needs tasks.read" gives a usable precondition for invoking the tool. It does not say when to prefer it over list_tasks or search_tasks, so selection guidance is only implied.
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.