Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Plannr MCP Server

Plannr MCP Server

by dragosh29
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Get task

get_task
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve one task by UUID to view its description, status, related items, assignees, workflow, and custom fields, with optional contact details.

Instructions

One task by UUID, with its description, status, what it relates to, assignees, workflow and custom field names. Uses GET /api/v1/task/{uuid}.

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": {
      "task_uuid": "<task_uuid>"
    },
    "name": "get_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_uuidYesTask UUID
include_contact_detailsNoInclude email addresses, custom field values, and unredacted emails, phone numbers and postcodes in the name and description. Off by default.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful detail about what is returned and the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about auth requirements, redaction behavior, or rate limits beyond what the schema's include_contact_details note already conveys.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which compensates well for the missing return contract. It is nearly complete for a simple read tool, though it could note redaction behavior more explicitly.

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%, including the UUID pattern and the include_contact_details redaction semantics, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema documents.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('One task by UUID') and enumerates the returned content (description, status, relations, assignees, workflow, custom field names). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_tasks by singular retrieval keyed on UUID.

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 phrase 'One task by UUID' implies the usage context (fetch a single known task vs. listing), but no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative is given. Usage is only implied, not stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools