Skip to main content
Glama

server_get_task

Retrieve configuration details for a scheduled task on a specific server to manage automation settings.

Instructions

Get configuration for a specific scheduled task

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
server_idYesServer ID or UUID
task_idYesTask ID

Implementation Reference

  • The `server_get_task` tool is registered and implemented here, using the `client.get` method to fetch task details from the API.
    server.tool(
      "server_get_task",
      "Get configuration for a specific scheduled task",
      {
        server_id: z.string().describe("Server ID or UUID"),
        task_id: z.string().describe("Task ID"),
      },
      async ({ server_id, task_id }) => {
        try {
          const data = await client.get(`/servers/${server_id}/tasks/${task_id}`);
          return { content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(data, null, 2) }] };
        } catch (error) {
          const msg = error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error);
          return { content: [{ type: "text", text: `Error: ${msg}` }], isError: true };
        }
      }
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves configuration, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, returns structured data, or has any side effects like logging. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Get configuration for a specific scheduled task') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete but lacks depth. It doesn't explain what 'configuration' entails or the return format, which could be crucial for an agent to use the tool effectively. However, it meets basic requirements for a straightforward get operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (server_id and task_id). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or relationship between parameters. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get configuration') and resource ('a specific scheduled task'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar siblings like 'server_get', 'server_get_file', or 'server_get_webhook' beyond specifying it's for tasks, which prevents a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'server_list_tasks' (for listing) and 'server_update_task' (for modifying), there's no indication of prerequisites, such as needing to list tasks first to obtain a task_id, or when retrieval versus other operations is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/HadiCherkaoui/crafty-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server