Retrieve the complete delegation chain for any task, including its root and all descendants sorted by depth, to inspect parent/child accountability.
Get the full delegation chain for a task (root + all descendants, sorted by depth). Use this to inspect parent/child accountability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | Any task ID in the chain |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.19.0Input schema / properties / task_id / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / task_id / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the result (root + all descendants, depth-sorted), which is genuine behavioral context for a traversal tool, but it says nothing about read-only safety, chain size limits, pagination, or behavior when the task has no children.
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?
Two short sentences, no redundancy, with the scope and ordering constraint front-loaded before the usage hint. Every clause earns its place.
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 must convey the return value, and it does describe the result as the full chain from root, depth-sorted. Missing pagination/size caveats for potentially large chains keeps it short of a 5 for a simple single-parameter tool.
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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already explains that task_id is "Any task ID in the chain." The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Get the full delegation chain for a task") and defines the scope precisely as root plus all descendants sorted by depth, which clearly separates it from retrieving a single task. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from (e.g., get_task or get_task_context), so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.
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?
"Use this to inspect parent/child accountability" gives an implied use case but no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites. An agent can guess the intent but is not routed away from get_task/get_task_context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.