Retrieve detailed information and deployment summaries for a specific workflow task to troubleshoot or audit CI/CD execution outcomes.
Get a Zadig workflow task detail with deployment summaries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | ||
| include_raw | No | ||
| project_key | No | ||
| workflow_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation, and 'with deployment summaries' indicates what kind of data is returned. However, the description does not disclose requirements, side effects, or the impact of include_raw, which would add useful behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to identifying the operation and the kind of payload returned.
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?
The tool has four parameters, no annotations, and no schema-level parameter descriptions, yet the description only covers the basic purpose. It omits usage routing, parameter semantics, and the role of include_raw, leaving the agent under-informed even though an output schema exists.
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%, and the description provides almost no parameter-level meaning. workflow_name and task_id are inferable from the tool's purpose, but include_raw and project_key remain unexplained, so the agent cannot reliably know how to set them or what raw mode changes.
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' and a clear resource 'Zadig workflow task detail', with 'deployment summaries' narrowing the scope. It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like zadig_workflow_task_list or zadig_workflow_task_job_log, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as zadig_workflow_get, zadig_workflow_task_list, or zadig_workflow_task_job_log. The agent must infer the appropriate context solely from the tool name and one-line purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.