kimai-mcp-server

Get Kimai Task

kimai_get_task

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve details of a specific task in Kimai using its ID. Output can be markdown or JSON.

Instructions

Read one task from /api/tasks/ when the Kimai tasks feature/plugin is available. This tool is read-only.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "kimai_get_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Kimai entity ID.
`response_format`	No	Output format: markdown for human-readable summaries, json for structured output.	markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description redundantly states 'This tool is read-only' when annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. It adds value by mentioning the plugin availability condition, but does not elaborate on error handling (e.g., what happens if the task ID doesn't exist) or other behavioral traits.

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?

Two sentences, each serving a clear purpose: the first states the action and prerequisite, the second reinforces the read-only nature. No wasted words, and the information 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 operation, the description covers the essential context (API endpoint, plugin dependency) and the annotations cover safety. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the `response_format` parameter hinting at human-readable vs. structured output. However, a brief note on the return structure would improve completeness.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description does not add any parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides. Both parameters (`id` and `response_format`) are well-documented in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat them.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Read'), the resource ('one task'), and the API endpoint ('/api/tasks/<id>'), distinguishing it from the sibling `kimai_list_tasks` which lists all tasks.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a condition for use ('when the Kimai tasks feature/plugin is available'), which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other sibling tools or mention when not to use it, such as for listing tasks.

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