Skip to main content
Glama

get_task

Retrieve task details including comments and attachments from FluentBoards project management boards to support task management and collaboration.

Instructions

Get details of a specific task including comments and attachments

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
board_idYesBoard ID
task_idYesTask ID

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function that extracts board_id and task_id from arguments, performs a GET request to the API endpoint for the specific task, and returns the formatted response data.
        const { board_id, task_id } = args;
        const response = await api.get(`/projects/${board_id}/tasks/${task_id}`);
        return formatResponse(response.data);
      }
    );
  • Input schema using Zod for validating board_id and task_id as positive integers.
      board_id: z.number().int().positive().describe("Board ID"),
      task_id: z.number().int().positive().describe("Task ID"),
    },
    async (args) => {
  • Registers the get_task tool on the MCP server with name, description, input schema, and handler function.
      "get_task",
      "Get details of a specific task including comments and attachments",
      {
        board_id: z.number().int().positive().describe("Board ID"),
        task_id: z.number().int().positive().describe("Task ID"),
      },
      async (args) => {
        const { board_id, task_id } = args;
        const response = await api.get(`/projects/${board_id}/tasks/${task_id}`);
        return formatResponse(response.data);
      }
    );
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves details but doesn't mention whether it's a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled (e.g., if the task doesn't exist), or the format of the returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Get details of a specific task') and specifies included elements ('comments and attachments'). There is no wasted language, and it's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's low complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and what details are included, but lacks information on behavioral aspects like error handling, permissions, or return format. For a retrieval tool with no annotations or output schema, more context on the response would be beneficial, though it's minimally viable.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('board_id' and 'task_id') documented in the schema as integers greater than 0. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between board and task IDs or providing examples. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('task'), specifying what details are included ('comments and attachments'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_tasks' (which lists multiple tasks) and 'get_board' (which gets board details). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'update_task' or 'delete_task', which are different operations on the same resource.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage when needing details of a specific task, including its comments and attachments. It doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_tasks' (for multiple tasks) or 'get_board' (for board-level details), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/danieliser/fluent-boards-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server