grr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

tasks.tasks.get

Retrieves a specified task from a Google Tasks task list as JSON, enabling lookup of task details by task list and task ID.

Instructions

Returns the specified task [HTTP GET]. Returns the requested resource as JSON — request bodies are built from the typed parameters (typed flags win over the params map), or read whole from body_file Siblings over the same resource: clear, delete, insert, list, move, patch, update.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`task`	Yes	[URL path segment] Task identifier.
`query`	No	Extra KEY=VALUE query pairs for endpoints whose parameters Discovery does not describe.
`params`	No	Parameter map merged into the request; typed parameters win.
`dry_run`	No	Return the request that would be sent, without sending it.
`tasklist`	Yes	[URL path segment] Task list identifier.
`body_file`	No	Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`due`	No
`etag`	No
`kind`	No
`links`	No
`notes`	No
`title`	No
`hidden`	No
`parent`	No
`status`	No
`deleted`	No
`updated`	No
`position`	No
`selfLink`	No
`completed`	No
`webViewLink`	No
`assignmentInfo`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / task / description

Previous value: -"Task identifier."New value: +"[URL path segment] Task identifier."

changedInput schema / properties / tasklist / description

Previous value: -"Task list identifier."New value: +"[URL path segment] Task list identifier."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "assignmentInfo": {
+      "properties": {
+        "driveResourceInfo": {
+          "properties": {
+            "driveFileId": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "resourceKey": {
+              "type": "string"
+            }
+          },
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "linkToTask": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "spaceInfo": {
+          "properties": {
+            "space": {
+              "type": "string"
+            }
+          },
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "surfaceType": {
+          "enum": [
+            "CONTEXT_TYPE_UNSPECIFIED",
+            "GMAIL",
+            "DOCUMENT",
+            "SPACE"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "completed": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "deleted": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "due": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "etag": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "hidden": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "kind": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "links": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "description": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "link": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "notes": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "parent": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "position": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "selfLink": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "title": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "updated": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "webViewLink": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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. It mentions HTTP GET and JSON output, but includes generic request-body construction details that are irrelevant for a GET operation and does not clarify permissions, error behavior, or what 'specified task' returns beyond the output schema.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The first sentence is concise and front-loads the core purpose. The second sentence is long, generic boilerplate about building request bodies that does not apply to a GET, and the sibling list is useful but terse.

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?

The output schema and full parameter descriptions reduce what the description must cover, and the core operation is understandable from the first sentence. However, for a tool with no annotations, the description should better explain that this is a read-only single-task retrieval and should avoid misleading body-construction guidance.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, including `tasklist` and `task` as required path segments. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond repeating the schema's note that typed flags win over the `params` map.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the specified task [HTTP GET].' The sibling list names the other operations on the same resource, so an agent can distinguish get from list, insert, patch, etc., though the list stops short of explaining when each is preferred.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus `tasks.tasks.list` or the other siblings. The description only lists sibling names, and the HTTP GET label implies retrieval but does not state prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server