get_reportRead a task's report for a project; if no task ID is given, return the last submitted report.
Planner: read a task's report. Without task_id, returns the most recently submitted report in the project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes | Project slug: lowercase letters, digits and hyphens (e.g. my-app). | |
| task_id | No | Task ID, e.g. P001. |
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. It does disclose the default-scope behavior (most recent report when task_id is absent) and the 'Planner:' prefix hints at a role/authorization scope, but it never confirms read-only safety, permissions, or what the report object contains.
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 tool's role and resource, then the default-scope rule. No filler and 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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential call semantics and the default case. It stops short of describing the returned report's shape or errors, which is a minor gap given the simplicity.
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%, so both parameters are already documented with patterns and examples. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the consequence of omitting task_id, which the schema does not state.
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 (read) and resource (a task's report), plus the fallback behavior when task_id is omitted. It does not reference any sibling such as list_tasks or submit_report, so the agent gets a clear purpose but no explicit differentiation from related 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?
The description conditions the call: 'Without task_id, returns the most recently submitted report,' which tells the agent how to invoke it in the default case. However, it never states when to prefer this over list_tasks or after submit_report, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.