Retrieve a single WEEEK task by its ID to view assignees, watchers, parent and subtasks, priority, dates, tags, locations, time entries, attachments, and custom-field values.
Get one WEEEK task by id: assignees, watchers, parent and subtasks, priority, dates, tags, locations, time entries, attachments and custom-field values (customFields, option names shown).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that this is a read that returns a rich payload (assignees, watchers, subtasks, time entries, custom fields). It remains silent on error behavior for missing ids, permissions, and rate limits, so the disclosure is partial.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence led by the verb and resource, followed by the returned-field list. The field list is long but justified given there is no output schema, and no sentence is redundant.
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 no output schema, the enumeration of returned fields (including nested parent/subtasks and resolved custom-field option names) is exactly the detail an agent needs to plan around the response. Only failure/permission behavior is absent, which is a modest gap for a single-param read.
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 coverage is 0% and the single 'id' parameter is undocumented in the schema; the description only adds that it identifies one task ('by id' / 'task by id'). That is the minimum needed but no format, type, or source-of-id guidance is given.
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 ('Get one WEEEK task by id') and the 'one ... by id' framing inherently distinguishes it from the sibling weeek_list_tasks and weeek_get_attachment. An agent can identify the tool's function without opening the schema.
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?
'By id' implies the caller must already know a task identifier, which is the implied usage condition. However, it names no alternative (e.g., use weeek_list_tasks to find an id first) and gives no when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.