Retrieve a complete task by its ID, including assignees, labels, status, custom fields, and task URL. Use this to access detailed information about a specific task.
Get one task by id, with its full detail (assignees, labels, status, custom fields, task_url).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it readOnly and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds some context by listing the returned detail fields, but it does not disclose behavior for missing/invalid IDs, response envelope, or error handling.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the parenthetical list of returned fields is compact. No filler or repetition.
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 simple one-parameter read operation with readOnly/destructive annotations, the description is mostly sufficient: it names the resource, the lookup key, and the returned fields. It could be more complete with a note on not-found behavior, but nothing essential to invoking the tool is missing.
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 only parameter, id, is documented by schema as a required integer, but schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds little beyond the word 'by id'; it does not explain the ID's source, format, or how to obtain it.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('one task'), and a selection criterion ('by id'), and it enumerates the returned detail fields. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like clokio_list_tasks, clokio_create_task, and clokio_update_task.
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 implies the tool is for retrieving a single task by ID but does not state when to choose it over alternatives (e.g., clokio_list_tasks for multiple tasks or clokio_get_task_activity for activity). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.