get_taskRetrieve a task's full activity log, its newest 200 entries, and linked files marked fresh, changed, or missing to track progress and spot stale references.
One task, its whole log (newest 200; entries_omitted if more) and its linked files marked fresh/changed/missing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | No | Your model id, e.g. 'claude-opus-5'. | |
| task_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: the log is truncated to the newest 200 entries with an `entries_omitted` signal, and linked files carry fresh/changed/missing classification. It still omits failure behavior for an unknown task_id.
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 tight sentence with no filler, and the truncation caveat is correctly placed inline rather than buried. It is telegraphic (a noun phrase with no verb), which is efficient but slightly less immediately parseable than a full statement of action.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return, and it does cover the log window and file-freshness flags well. However, it says nothing about the task's own fields, behavior on a nonexistent ID, or whether linked files are always present — gaps an agent would need to guess at.
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 only 50%: `model` is documented in the schema while `task_id` — the sole required parameter — has no description anywhere. The description never mentions either parameter, so it does not compensate for the gap; at best 'One task' hints that task_id selects the record.
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 gives a specific retrieved resource (a single task) plus the two things bundled with it — its log and its linked-file statuses. 'One task' implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_tasks, but it never names that sibling or states the lookup key explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer 'use this when you need one task in full detail rather than a list.' There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative such as list_tasks or get_context for narrower needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.