nc-mcp-server

get_task

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve complete details of a specific task by providing its UID and list ID, including status, priority, dates, and more.

Instructions

Get full details of a specific task by its UID.

Args: list_id: Task list identifier (e.g. "tasks"). task_uid: The task's UID. Use get_tasks to find UIDs.

Returns: JSON object with full task details: uid, summary, description, status, priority, percent_complete, dtstart, due, completed, etag, and optionally categories.

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": {
      "list_id": "<list_id>",
      "task_uid": "<task_uid>"
    },
    "name": "get_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`list_id`	Yes
`task_uid`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It does not contradict the annotations; it adds a note about using get_tasks, but no additional behavioral disclosures like auth or rate limits are provided. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is acceptable.

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 compact three-section structure: one purpose sentence, a short Args list with inline guidance, and a Returns list. No redundant or bloated content.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple read tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, both parameters, and the expected return fields. The pointer to get_tasks fills the only likely gap (how to obtain the UID).

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains list_id with an example ('tasks') and task_uid with a method to find it ('Use get_tasks to find UIDs'). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('task') scoped by UID, clearly distinguishing it from get_tasks (which presumably lists) and other task operations. It also mentions 'full details' to set expectations.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It directs the agent to use get_tasks to find UIDs, which is a clear pointer to the prerequisite sibling. It doesn't explicitly exclude other alternatives, but for a read tool, this is adequate guidance.

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

Deploy Server