Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
google-tasks-mcp-server

google-tasks-mcp-server

by Kouta-i5
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

タスク取得

get-task
Read-only

Retrieve the complete details of a specific Google Task by providing its task ID and optional task list ID.

Instructions

タスク 1 件の詳細を取得する。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "task": "<task>"
    },
    "name": "get-task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskYesタスクの ID。list-tasks で取得できる。
tasklistNoタスクリストの ID。既定のリストは '@default'。ID は list-tasklists で取得できる。@default

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, which covers the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond that—no mention of error handling, permissions, or return value. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but adds minimal value beyond the annotation.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the action and resource. There is zero wasted text and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple read tool with complete schema documentation and a readOnly annotation, the description is sufficient. It does not mention return format, but no output schema exists, and the behavior is straightforward. A slightly richer note on what the response contains would improve it, but nothing critical is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%—both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including how to obtain IDs from list-tasks and list-tasklists. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair: 'get details of one task.' It is unambiguous and distinguishes from list-tasks (which presumably retrieves multiple tasks) and tasklist operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling get-tasklist, though the resource type makes that obvious.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description only states what it does, without mentioning that it is the correct choice for fetching a single task by ID or that list-tasks is for retrieving multiple tasks. No exclusions or alternative references.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools