Fetch one task and all its comments by reference, e.g. "FET-014", from a remote fenbs board over MCP.
Get one task and its comments by ref, e.g. "FET-014".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full load. It does add one useful behavioral fact beyond the schema — that comments are returned alongside the task — but it says nothing about permissions, behavior on a nonexistent ref, or output shape.
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?
A single sentence with zero filler, and the essential lookup-by-ref information is front-loaded.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (task plus comments) and how to identify the target. Missing only minor details such as error behavior for an unknown ref, which is reasonable to omit at this complexity.
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 0% and the sole parameter is a bare 'string', so the description must compensate. The inline example 'FET-014' conveys the expected ref format, which is real added meaning over the schema, though it stops short of stating format rules or case sensitivity.
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 one task') plus the key detail that comments are included, and pins the lookup key as a ref. It is distinguishable from the list/search siblings by the singular scope, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool to reach for when it already knows a task ref like 'FET-014'. There is no statement of when to prefer it over fenbs_search or fenbs_list_items, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.