Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@illodev/taiga-mcp

@illodev/taiga-mcp

by illodev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

taiga_tasks_get_by_ref

Retrieve a specific Taiga task using its reference number and project ID, providing direct access to task details for project management workflows.

Instructions

Get a task by ref and project.

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": {
      "ref": "<ref>",
      "project": "<project>"
    },
    "name": "taiga_tasks_get_by_ref"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refYesTask ref number
projectYesProject ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description is a minimal restatement of the tool's name. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what fields are returned, error behavior, or any prerequisites. This leaves the agent without additional behavioral context beyond the name and parameters.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that immediately states the action and key identifiers. It earns its place with no fluff, though it is sparse.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's low complexity and full schema coverage, the description is minimally viable, but it lacks behavioral disclaimers and output information. Since no annotations or output schema exist, the bare-bones description leaves some gaps for an AI agent to make assumptions about the returned payload.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both ref ('Task ref number') and project ('Project ID'). The description adds no extra meaning—only re-mentions that both are needed. Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 uses the verb 'Get' with the resource 'task' and identifies the lookup keys 'ref and project'. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like taiga_tasks_get or taiga_issues_get_by_ref, as it specifies both the resource and the unique identifier pattern.

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 description implies usage when you have a task ref and project ID, but it does not explicitly contrast with taiga_tasks_get (likely by ID) or any other alternative. No 'when-not' guidance is provided, so the agent must infer usage from the schema and name.

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