get_task_detailRetrieve full details for a specific task by ID, including evidence, reviews, and deliverables. Use it to inspect a task's complete record and verify its outputs.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds that the response includes evidence, reviews, and deliverables, which is useful content-level context, but says nothing about pagination, size, or error behavior for a missing task.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key resource and payload contents lead immediately. It is efficient, though slightly under-specified rather than maximally informative.
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 read-only single-resource getter with a one-field schema, this is nearly sufficient: annotations cover the safety profile and the description enumerates returned sub-resources in lieu of an output schema. Only failure modes and routing against siblings are absent.
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 coverage is 100% for the single task_id parameter, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no format, source, or scoping detail beyond what the schema already provides, which is the expected baseline for full-coverage schemas.
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 and resource ('Get full details of a specific task') and even enumerates what the detail payload contains. It is clearly distinguished from a listing tool by the word 'specific task', but it never names or contrasts with a sibling like list_tasks.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is for retrieving one task when it already holds a task_id. There is no explicit when-to-use, no contrast with list_tasks or get_evidence, and no stated prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.