Retrieve complete details for a specific task by providing its task ID, including evidence, reviews, and deliverables.
Get full details of a specific task including all evidence, reviews, and deliverables.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | Task ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev2.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the read-only nature via the verb 'Get' and specifies the scope of returned data, but does not mention error behavior, existence checks, or any side effects. Adequate for a simple getter, but not fully comprehensive.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the verb, resource, and scope in a compact manner.
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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the return includes. It could mention missing-task behavior, but that is not essential for correct invocation.
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?
The input schema already fully documents the only parameter, task_id, with 100% description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 clearly states the tool gets full details of a specific task, enumerating the included content (evidence, reviews, deliverables). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tasks (which likely lists tasks) and get_evidence (which retrieves evidence directly).
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?
The description implies use when full details of a single task are needed, but it provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or references to alternative tools. The context is clear but not elaborated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.