Google Tasks MCP Server

get-task

Retrieve a specific Google Tasks item by providing its task list ID and task ID to access detailed information through Claude's interface.

Instructions

Get a specific task by ID

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "tasklist": "<tasklist>",
      "task": "<task>"
    },
    "name": "get-task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tasklist`	Yes	Task list ID
`task`	Yes	Task ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedAug 18, 2025

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a task but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, error handling, or response format. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or return values, which are crucial for a tool that interacts with task data. The simplicity of the tool partially mitigates this, but more context is needed for reliable use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description implies ID-based retrieval but doesn't add meaning beyond what the input schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters ('tasklist' and 'task' IDs). The description doesn't explain their relationship or usage context, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific task by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-tasklist' or 'list-tasks' beyond the ID specificity, which prevents a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list-tasks' or 'get-tasklist'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a tasklist ID) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server