Retrieve a task as JSON by ID, or fetch the session's current task when no ID is supplied; returns an error if the ID or current task is missing.
Return one task as JSON (id, session_id, title, status, timestamps). Read-only. Without task_id it returns the session's current task; errors when the ID does not exist or there is no current task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | No | Task ID; omit for the current task |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.9Input schema / properties / task_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Task ID"New value: +"Task ID; omit for the current task"v0.1.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the fallback to the session's current task and the error conditions when the ID does not exist or no current task is set. This error/default disclosure is valuable supplementary context beyond the annotation.
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?
Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and return shape, followed by the read-only note and the default/error behavior. No filler; every clause carries information.
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 tool with no output schema, the description covers return fields, the read-only nature, the default-selection behavior, and error cases. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.
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% (baseline 3), and the description adds meaning not in the schema: what happens when task_id is omitted and what error occurs for a non-existent ID. This lifts it slightly above the baseline.
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 (return) and resource (one task), enumerates the returned fields (id, session_id, title, status, timestamps), and clearly distinguishes itself from task.create/task.update siblings. An agent knows exactly what this does versus the other task tools.
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?
Explicitly explains the no-argument case ('Without task_id it returns the session's current task'), giving clear operational context for both modes. It does not, however, name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions against siblings like session.get or context.get.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.