CVAT MCP

cvat_get_task

Retrieve a CVAT task by its unique ID to access task details and annotations.

Instructions

Get one CVAT task by id from GET /api/tasks/{id}.

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": {
      "taskId": "<taskId>"
    },
    "name": "cvat_get_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`taskId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions the HTTP endpoint. It does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, side effects, or return format. For a get-by-id operation, more context would be helpful.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is overly minimal. It could be slightly longer to include useful details while remaining concise.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the low complexity (one param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is barely adequate. It includes the HTTP method but omits error handling, return structure, or usage hints.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's param taskId. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining parameter usage or format.

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 'Get one CVAT task by id', specifying the verb 'Get', resource 'CVAT task', and identification method 'by id'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cvat_list_tasks (list vs single) and cvat_get_task_annotations (task vs annotations).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cvat_get_job or cvat_list_tasks. It lacks explicit context for selection.

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

Deploy Server