Get one task by the opaque task_ref returned by google_ads_tasks_list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_ref | Yes | ||
| connection_context | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No | ||
| code | No | ||
| task | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| needs | No | ||
| reason | No | ||
| retryable | No | ||
| error_code | No | ||
| next_action | No | ||
| support_ref | No | ||
| invalid_fields | No | ||
| rejected_paths | No | ||
| origin_support_ref | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "code": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "error": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "code": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "details": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "retryable": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "support_ref": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "error_code": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "invalid_fields": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "needs": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "next_action": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "origin_support_ref": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "reason": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "rejected_paths": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "retryable": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "support_ref": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "task": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "completed_at": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "created_at": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "result_summary": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "started_at": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "task_ref": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "task_type": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / properties / connection_contextAdded value: +{
+ "pattern": "^mctx_v1_[0-9a-f]{64}$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that task_ref is 'opaque' — i.e., not constructible and only obtainable from the list tool — but says nothing about what happens on an unknown/stale ref or what connection_context governs.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and its key, with zero redundant restatement of the name or title. Every clause 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?
With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and for a read-only single-record fetch the description covers origin-of-key and safety adequately. The only real gap is the undocumented connection_context parameter.
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%, so the description must carry the load. It meaningfully explains task_ref (an opaque handle sourced from google_ads_tasks_list), which the bare string type does not, but leaves connection_context (with its mctx_v1_ pattern) completely unaddressed.
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?
Specific verb ('Get') plus a single resource ('one task') with the identifying key named ('by the opaque task_ref'). The phrase 'one task' vs. the sibling google_ads_tasks_list makes the singular-vs-list distinction obvious, though the description doesn't explicitly state the contrast.
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 implies an ordering constraint by saying the task_ref is 'returned by google_ads_tasks_list', which steers the agent to call the list tool first. It stops short of explicit when-to-use vs. when-not or naming any alternative lookup path.
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.