get_task_resultRetrieve a compact JSON report for a delegated test-writing task, including status, build and test counts, security checks, applied files, and summary; request logs via include.
Compact JSON report (status, build, test counts, security check, applied files, summary). Logs are included only when asked for via include.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes | ||
| include | No | ||
| maxChars | No | Per included log; the tail is kept. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description usefully discloses that output is a compact JSON report with named sections and that logs are opt-in via 'include' — valuable since there is no output schema — but says nothing about behavior when the task is missing, still running, or failed.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the return payload and ending with the key opt-in rule. No wasted clauses, though a leading purpose clause would improve it.
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?
For a read-only getter with three params, no output schema, and a 33% schema coverage, the description should carry the return-value burden. It names the report sections and the log gating but omits taskId semantics and any failure/empty-result behavior.
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 coverage is 33%; only maxChars is documented in the schema. The description adds real meaning to 'include' by tying it to log inclusion, but leaves the required taskId and the relationship between include entries and the report's log sections unexplained.
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?
The description describes the shape of what is returned (status, build, test counts, security check, applied files, summary) rather than stating the action, so the verb 'get' comes only from the name. It does not distinguish this from siblings like get_task_status or wait_for_task, which also return task state.
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?
No guidance on when to call this versus get_task_status, wait_for_task, or get_task_diff. The one usage rule given ('logs are included only when asked for via include') concerns output payload, not tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.