productive_get_taskRetrieve a single task by ID from Productive.io to access its description, dates, time tracking, and related project or assignee details.
Get a single task by ID from Productive.io with full details including description, dates, and time tracking info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The task ID | |
| include | No | Comma-separated related resources to include (e.g. 'project,assignee,task_list') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read-only lookup and it names the kinds of fields returned (description, dates, time tracking), but it says nothing about permissions, missing-ID error behavior, or whether includes affect cost.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the ID requirement come first. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup, though the trailing 'with full details...' clause is somewhat generic.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description usefully sketches the returned content (description, dates, time tracking), and both parameters are covered by the schema. Missing are edge cases like not-found behavior, but overall it is sufficient for calling a simple read tool.
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 both 'id' and 'include' are already documented with examples in the schema. The description adds no further meaning beyond the fact that the lookup is ID-based, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb and resource: 'Get a single task by ID from Productive.io'. Naming the ID-keyed, single-record scope implicitly separates it from productive_list_tasks, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with that sibling.
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 only implied by 'by ID' — the agent can infer this is for fetching one known task rather than browsing. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the list/update/create task siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.