Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
PatchWarden

PatchWarden

by jiezeng2004-design
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_task_summary

Retrieve structured acceptance evidence for a task. Use compact view for bounded counts and risk excerpts, or standard view for full changed-file and log-tail detail.

Instructions

Return structured acceptance evidence. Use view=compact first for bounded counts and risk excerpts; use standard only when full changed-file and log-tail detail is required.

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": {
      "task_id": "<task_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_task_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
viewNoCompact returns bounded acceptance evidence; standard preserves the full legacy summary.standard
task_idYesTask ID
max_itemsNoMaximum entries per compact evidence group.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.5.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains what each view returns, but doesn't explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive. The name 'get' implies safety, but more explicit transparency would be better.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word contributes meaning. No redundant information.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the view usage well but does not describe the return structure in detail. It mentions 'structured acceptance evidence' but lacks specifics on format or content.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by advising when to use each view value, which goes beyond the schema's enum descriptions. This strategic guidance improves parameter understanding.

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 starts with 'Return structured acceptance evidence', which clearly specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on acceptance evidence summaries, and the mention of view modes adds specificity.

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?

It explicitly advises to use view=compact first and upgrade to standard only when needed, providing clear heuristics. However, it does not compare this tool to alternative siblings like get_task_log_tail or get_diff.

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