clickup-custom-mcp

Task detail

get_task

Get full details for one task: description, custom field values, subtasks, and optionally comments. Use after search or my work to narrow to a specific task.

Instructions

Full detail for one task: description, custom field values, subtasks, and optionally its comments. Use it after search_tasks or get_my_work has narrowed things down to a single task.

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_id": "<task_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task_id`	Yes
`include_comments`	No	Costs one extra request. Default false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses what data is returned (description, custom fields, subtasks, optional comments) and notes that comments are optional. It does not detail error behavior or auth requirements, but for a simple read operation this is adequate context.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the usage guidance is a single concise clause. No wasted words or repetition of schema details.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple single-task retrieval tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what it returns and when to invoke it. It does not need to describe return structure since it lists the main fields, and the output schema is absent by design.

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 coverage is 50%: include_comments has a description ('Costs one extra request. Default false.'), but task_id has only a type. The description adds the semantic of 'one task' but does not elaborate on task_id format. The optional comments behavior is echoed but not expanded beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('one task'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like search_tasks (which narrows down) and get_my_work. It enumerates the returned components: description, custom field values, subtasks, and optionally comments.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use it: 'after search_tasks or get_my_work has narrowed things down to a single task.' This gives clear context and implies it is not for bulk listing or discovery.

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

Deploy Server