Retrieve a single task from a Worksection project by project and task IDs, with optional inclusion of description text, files, and subtasks for full task details.
Fetch one task, optionally with its description text, files and subtasks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | Task id. | |
| project_id | Yes | Project the task belongs to. | |
| include_extra | No | Include description text, files and subtasks. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It transparently notes the optional inclusion of description text, files, and subtasks, but does not disclose auth requirements, error behavior, or default response shape. 'Fetch' implies read-only, yet this is not explicitly stated.
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?
A single, efficient sentence states the main verb, resource, and optional extra fields. No filler or redundant information; the core behavior is front-loaded.
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 single-task fetch, the description is adequate, but it lacks guidance on how this tool relates to sibling tools like get_subtasks and get_task_files, especially when include_extra could overlap. With no output schema and no annotations, more context about the return value or default behavior would improve completeness.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema because it closely mirrors the include_extra parameter description ('description text, files and subtasks'). It does not provide additional syntactic or format context for the parameters.
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?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Fetch one task') on a specific resource, which distinguishes it from get_tasks and similar list operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_subtasks or get_task_files, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this aggregate fetch versus those dedicated endpoints.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The phrase 'Fetch one task' implies a single-task lookup, but no exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so an agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.