Reads a task's Core lifecycle state, current attempt, and transition evidence to verify progress and diagnose workflow issues.
Read Core lifecycle, current attempt and transition evidence for a TASK.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.5Input schema / properties / filenameRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Task filename or ID (same forms as ``read_task``).",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / task_idAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "filename"
-]New value: +[
+ "task_id"
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +nullv3.2.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation and hints at the data returned, but says nothing about permissions, whether the attempt/transition data can be absent or empty, cost, or any failure mode for a lifecycle-inspection tool.
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. It is efficiently sized, though the jargon ('Core lifecycle', 'transition evidence') slightly reduces parsing speed without adding precision.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain what inspection actually returns. 'Transition evidence' and 'current attempt' are never unpacked, so an agent cannot predict the response shape or know how it differs from read_task.
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 description coverage is 0%, but the single parameter is task_id, whose name and required status make its meaning self-evident, and 'for a TASK' loosely ties it to the parameter. The description adds no format, ID-source, or scoping detail beyond the schema.
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?
Names a specific verb (Read) and a specific resource (Core lifecycle, current attempt and transition evidence for a TASK), so the agent knows this is a diagnostic/inspection read rather than a plain fetch. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling read_task, which an agent could plausibly pick instead.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus read_task, list_tasks, or inspect_workspace. Terms like 'Core lifecycle' and 'transition evidence' hint at a debugging use case but never state the condition that selects this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.