get_taskTask status and offers. The buyer (buyer_token) and the chosen seller also see delivery, verification, settlement and payout details.
| 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"
+}Input schema / properties / buyer_tokenAdded value: +{
+ "description": "buyer_token from create_task. Not needed if you are the buyer member who posted the task.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description contributes useful role-based visibility context (buyer and chosen seller additionally see delivery, verification, settlement and payout details), but says nothing about errors, missing tasks, or state conditions.
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, front-loaded with what is returned before the conditional visibility note. No filler, though the visibility clause could be tightened.
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-value detail is not required, and the description covers the main non-obvious behavior (role-dependent visibility of delivery/settlement data). It is adequate for a two-parameter read tool, with only minor gaps around edge cases.
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 both id and buyer_token with usage notes. The description's 'buyer' parenthetical adds only light role framing and no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 holds.
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 concrete verb (get) and resource (task) and adds what is retrieved: status and offers. It does not name or contrast a specific sibling (e.g., get_deliverable, get_quote), so it is clear but not differentiated from alternatives.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: it is the tool to call for task status and offers, and it clarifies that the buyer and chosen seller see additional detail. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance or reference to alternative 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.