Retrieve an agent's current active task metadata, or return null when no task is active. Use it to check what an agent is currently working on before routing or updating work.
Return the current active task metadata for an agent, or null if no task is active.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the null-return behavior, which is genuinely useful for callers, but says nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, permissions required, or whether 'active' has a specific lifecycle state in the agent state machine.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The null case is stated up front alongside the primary behavior.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description is the only place return shape can be conveyed; naming 'task metadata' plus null is a reasonable start but does not say what fields the metadata contains or how 'active' is determined. Adequate but with clear gaps for a state-inspection tool.
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?
One parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the description should compensate more than it does; 'for an agent' only loosely identifies agent_id. It adds no format, ID-style, or validity details beyond the schema's bare string type.
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: returns the current active task metadata for an agent. It also declares the null fallback, which sharpens the contract. It does not distinguish itself from near-siblings like agent_status or load_agent_context, so it stops short of a 5.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite a crowded sibling set (agent_status, load_agent_context, agent_start_task). The only usage signal is inference from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.