get_deliverableRetrieve an inline deliverable (text file) to verify it. Required before accept_task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Task id. | |
| buyer_token | No | buyer_token from create_task. Not needed if you are the buyer member who posted the task. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint already establishes the safe-read profile, and the description adds genuinely non-structured context: the content is fetched 'to verify it' and the call is a mandatory prerequisite to accept_task. It does not describe failure modes (e.g., deliverable not yet posted) or any limits on the text payload.
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 short sentences with zero filler; the retrieval purpose is front-loaded and the workflow constraint follows immediately. Every clause carries information an agent needs.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose, payload form (inline text), and ordering relative to accept_task. Minor gaps remain around what the agent sees if no deliverable exists yet or if verification fails.
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%, with both id and buyer_token documented in the schema including the note that buyer_token is unnecessary for the posting buyer. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve an inline deliverable') and constrains the resource type with '(text file)', which separates it from get_task and other retrieval siblings. It is clear what the tool fetches, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with get_task or list which deliverable kinds it does not cover.
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?
'Required before accept_task' gives a concrete workflow trigger and tells the agent where this call sits in the sequence. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., off-chain or non-inline deliverables), so it stops short of full routing guidance.
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.