Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Missive MCP

Missive MCP

by kanjidoc
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

missive_get_task

Read-only

Retrieve a specific task by ID, including expanded assignee and team details.

Instructions

Gets a single task by ID, with full details including expanded assignee and team objects.

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": "missive_get_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYesID of the task to retrieve.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the expanded objects (assignee, team), which informs the agent about the response structure beyond the read-only nature.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the key action and distinguishing details, with no wasted words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of sibling tools for listing tasks, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose. It mentions the expanded objects, though without an output schema, could be more explicit about the return format.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of task_id. The description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the verb ('Gets'), resource ('a single task by ID'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like missive_list_tasks by emphasizing 'full details including expanded assignee and team objects'.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit directive on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like missive_list_tasks or missive_update_task. Usage is implied but not contrasted.

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