otask-mcp-server

Get O!task Task

otask_get_task

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a task by workspace and task slug to inspect current field values such as board, performers, and tags before updating.

Instructions

Fetch a task from O!task by workspace and task slug.

Use before otask_update_task to inspect current field values (board_id, performers, tags, etc.).

Args:

ws_slug: Workspace UUID from panel.otask.ru URL (/ws/{ws_slug}/...)
task_slug: Task UUID from URL (.../tasks/{task_slug})

Returns JSON with key task fields: id, slug, name, description, end_at, board_id, board_column_id, priority_id, project_id, performers, tags.

Docs: https://api.otask.ru/docs#zadaci-GETapi-v1-ws--ws_slug--tasks--task_slug

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": {
      "ws_slug": "<ws_slug>",
      "task_slug": "<task_slug>"
    },
    "name": "otask_get_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ws_slug`	Yes	Workspace slug (UUID from panel.otask.ru URL)
`task_slug`	Yes	Task slug (UUID from panel.otask.ru URL)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jun 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds value by listing the returned fields, providing transparency on the output.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, one for usage guidance, parameter list, return fields, and a docs link. No wasted words.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite no output schema, the description lists all returned fields, provides a docs link, and gives clear parameter extraction instructions. Everything an agent needs to use this tool correctly is included.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds practical context for both parameters (UUID extraction from URL), which helps agents correctly extract values. This goes beyond schema documentation.

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?

The description clearly states 'Fetch a task from O!task by workspace and task slug.' This is a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from the sibling 'otask_update_task' by advising use before updates.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly recommends using before otask_update_task to inspect current field values. While it doesn't mention when not to use, the read-only nature is clear from annotations and context. Alternative is implied.

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

Deploy Server