Retrieve the current status and details of a specific task by providing its ID and the agent ID that processed it.
Get the current state of a task
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes | ID of the task to retrieve | |
| agentId | Yes | ID of the agent that handled the task |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify if this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns error states, or what the output format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with two required parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, efficient sentence ('Get the current state of a task') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the complexity (2 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or return values, which are crucial for a tool that retrieves task states. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it effectively.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for taskId and agentId. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain why both IDs are required or how they relate). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the current state of a task' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('task'), specifying it retrieves the 'current state' rather than just the task itself. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like a2a_agent_info (which might get agent info) or a2a_send_task (which sends tasks), leaving room for ambiguity about when to use this versus others.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a taskId from a previous operation) or exclusions (e.g., not for creating or modifying tasks). With siblings like a2a_cancel_task and a2a_send_task, this lack of context could lead to incorrect tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.