gryzzly-mcp

get_task

Read-only

Fetch full details for a single task—budget, rate, planned time, and its place in the project hierarchy—by task name or ID, optionally scoped to a project.

Instructions

Read one task in full: its budget, its rate, its planned time, its place in the project's hierarchy.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task`	Yes	The task, by name or id.
`project`	No	The project the task belongs to, to disambiguate a name.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The task's identifier.
`name`	No	The task's name.
`tags`	No	The tags attached to the task.
`end_at`	No	When the task is supposed to end.
`groups`	No	The groups assigned to the task.
`start_at`	No	When the task starts.
`parent_id`	No	The parent task, when this task is a subtask.
`created_at`	No	When the task was created.
`project_id`	No	The project the task belongs to.
`updated_at`	No	When the task was last updated.
`budget_type`	No	One of `none`, `detailed`, `global`, `time`.
`hourly_rate`	No	The task's hourly rate.
`completed_at`	No	When the task was completed.
`is_container`	No	Whether the task only holds other tasks.
`budget_amount`	No	The task's budget.
`hourly_rate_mode`	No	One of `task`, `group`, `contributor`.
`planned_duration`	No	Planned duration, in seconds.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds that the response is the full task record including budget, rate and hierarchy placement, but says nothing about missing-task behavior or permission requirements.

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?

A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the enumerated fields earning their place by telling the agent what comes back.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the two parameters are fully covered by the schema. The only gap is the absence of guidance on single-vs-list retrieval, which is minor for a simple read tool.

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 both parameters (task, project) are already documented in the schema, including that project disambiguates a name. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (one task) and enumerates the content returned (budget, rate, planned time, hierarchy). The singular 'one task' implicitly separates it from list_tasks, though that sibling is never named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch a single task's full detail. There is no statement of when to prefer this over list_tasks or get_project, and no mention of prerequisites or the name-ambiguity case that the project parameter exists to resolve.

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