get_task_statusRetrieve summary counts and each task's status for a task group, or fetch a specific task's full details, including its result or error, by task_id.
Summary counts and every task's status for a group; with task_id, that task in full including its result or error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | No | ||
| task_group | No | Defaults to the latest group |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the per-task mode includes the result or error payload, which is genuine behavioral context. It does not disclose behavior for an unknown/expired task_id, task_group defaults beyond the schema note, or output volume.
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 stating the default behavior first and the task_id variant second, with zero filler. The semicolon split mirrors the two modes cleanly.
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 must carry return-shape information, and it only sketches 'summary counts' and 'result or error' without detail. Error paths (missing task_id, unknown group) are unaddressed, leaving meaningful gaps for a two-mode 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 coverage is only 50%, and the description compensates for the undocumented task_id by explaining its effect: it switches from group summary to a full single-task record including result or error. task_group's default is already handled by the schema. Minor gap: no format/ID-source hints.
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 resource (task status) and both operating modes: group-level summary counts plus per-task status, or, with task_id, one task in full. It is clear what the tool retrieves, though it never names or contrasts sibling task tools like get_next_task or complete_task.
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?
'with task_id, that task in full' gives a clear conditional for the two modes, which is useful. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus the many sibling task tools (get_next_task, clear_tasks, complete_task), nor exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.