get_task
Retrieve a task by its ID to access its details in Filevine.
Instructions
Get a task by ID.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Retrieve a task by its ID to access its details in Filevine.
Get a task by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description adds no behavioral information such as authentication, idempotency, or side effects. For a simple read, minimal disclosure.
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 concise sentence, front-loading the core purpose. Could include more detail without verbosity.
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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. However, for a simple get operation, it is minimally adequate but lacks context on error conditions or relationships.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not elaborate on the 'task_id' parameter beyond the schema's type. The parameter is self-explanatory, but the description could add format or constraints.
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 a task by ID' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (task) with the primary identifier. It effectively distinguishes from sibling like 'list_tasks' but lacks mention of returned data.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_subtask' or 'list_tasks'. No context about prerequisites or use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.