Inspect the global task pool by task ID to review all global tasks; use a project-task lookup when you need only one project task.
Inspect the global task pool. Upstream v2.19.17 returns the full pool even for this task-specific route; use get_task for a single project task. GET /tasks/{task_id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine undisclosed behavior: upstream v2.19.17 returns the entire pool even on this task-specific route, which is exactly the kind of quirk an agent cannot infer from any structured field.
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?
Two tight sentences plus the route, zero waste, with the surprising behavior front-loaded before the alternative routing. Nothing could be removed without losing signal.
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?
For a one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this covers the essential behavior including the version-specific quirk. The only gap is whether task_id is validated, ignored, or errors when the pool is returned instead.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it effectively signals that task_id does not narrow the result under v2.19.17 (the full pool is returned regardless). It never states this explicitly apart from 'even for this task-specific route', leaving a small inference gap.
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+resource ('Inspect the global task pool') and immediately resolves the confusing name/route mismatch by noting this task-specific route returns the full pool upstream. It also names get_task as the single-task alternative, so the tool can be told apart from siblings, though its relationship to list_global_tasks is never clarified.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent to get_task 'for a single project task', giving a concrete when-not condition and alternative. It stops short of explaining when to pick this over the very similar list_global_tasks sibling, which is the closest ambiguity an agent would face.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.