get_next_taskFetches the oldest open task in a project and marks it in_progress. Returns the task's ID, title, and body so Claude Code can begin work.
Claude Code: take the oldest open task in a project. Returns its ID, title and body and marks it in_progress.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes | Project slug: lowercase letters, digits and hyphens (e.g. my-app). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the critical non-obvious behavior: despite the read-like 'get_' name, it marks the task in_progress and returns ID, title and body. It stops short of edge-case behavior such as atomicity/concurrency when two agents claim the same task, or the outcome when no open task remains.
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 short sentences with zero filler, and the note that it mutates state ('marks it in_progress') is saved for last where it lands as the key warning. Nothing redundant.
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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the return payload (ID, title, body) and the state side effect, which is most of what an agent needs. It omits failure/empty-queue behavior, which is a minor but real gap.
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?
Only one parameter (project) with 100% schema description coverage including format and an example, so the schema already does the work. The description adds no syntax or scope detail beyond 'in a project', which is the expected baseline when coverage is complete.
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 — taking the oldest open task in a project — and immediately clarifies it also returns ID/title/body and mutates state. Among siblings (create_task, list_tasks, submit_report) this is clearly the claiming action, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.
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 phrase 'the oldest open task in a project' implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus list_tasks, nor any note on prerequisites or what happens when no open task exists. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.