Retrieve a specific task approval and its approvers by providing project, task, and approval IDs.
Gets one approval on a task, with its approvers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes | Task the approval is on. | |
| projectId | Yes | Project the task belongs to. | |
| approvalId | Yes | Approval identifier, from the conversations endpoint. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The phrase 'with its approvers' adds useful context about what the response includes, which goes beyond the annotations. However, with no output schema, no further behavioral details (error cases, whether approvers is always present) are given.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word (verb, singular resource, included relation) earns its place.
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?
For a simple read getter with full annotation and schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. Without an output schema, the sole cue about return data is 'with its approvers', leaving the shape of the approval object unexplained.
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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter documented including the origin of approvalId ('from the conversations endpoint'). The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 verb ('Gets') and resource ('one approval on a task'), which distinguishes it from the sibling gorelo_create_project_task_approval. It doesn't clarify what an 'approval' is or how it differs from gorelo_get_ticket_approval beyond the task context, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives and no exclusion conditions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the fact that an approvalId is required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.