View submitted completion proof before accepting or rejecting it.
Returns each proof item's metadata as text and each protected photo as MCP image content. Photos are oriented and reduced to a 1568px long side. Only the agent that owns the task can retrieve it; non-owners receive the task endpoint's 404 response.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | The owned task whose submitted proof you want to see. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / task_id / descriptionAdded value: +"The owned task whose submitted proof you want to see."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses output format differences (metadata as text, protected photos as MCP image content), photo processing details (oriented, reduced to 1568px long side), and ownership-based 404 behavior. This goes well beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations and prepares the agent for actual response behavior.
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 sentences carry distinct value: purpose, return format, and access restriction. The text is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every sentence earns its place without 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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the response composition and error behavior. It could specify the exact metadata fields or how many proof items to expect, but an agent has enough to invoke the tool and interpret the result at a useful level.
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?
The input schema already covers the single parameter fully, describing task_id as 'The owned task whose submitted proof you want to see.' The description reinforces the ownership constraint but does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('View') and resource ('submitted completion proof') and adds lifecycle context ('before accepting or rejecting it') that distinguishes it from status/attachment siblings. An agent can tell this is the pre-review proof tool without opening any other definitions.
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 clearly frames when to use the tool: when reviewing submitted completion proof before making an accept/reject decision. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as list_task_attachments or submit_completion_review, but the usage context is unambiguous.
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.