Retrieve full details of a specific ticket by key, like CPD-123, optionally from a workspace. Use it to inspect work item information in Task360 MCP.
Retrieve full details of a specific ticket by key (e.g. CPD-123).
Args: key: The work item key (e.g. "CPD-123"). workspace: Workspace slug (optional).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| workspace | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the call returns 'full details' rather than a summary, and 'Retrieve' implies a non-destructive read, but there is nothing about auth requirements, behavior when the key does not exist, or cross-workspace access semantics.
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 short elements: one sentence stating the operation and one arg block. The purpose is front-loaded before the arguments, and there is no filler.
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?
A simple two-parameter read tool with an output schema, so return values need no explanation. The description covers both parameters and the core retrieval semantics; only edge-case behavior (missing key, workspace resolution) is absent, which is minor at this complexity.
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%, so the description must compensate, and it mostly does: it explains 'key' as the work item key with a concrete example, and explicitly marks 'workspace' as an optional workspace slug. It stops short of saying when workspace must be supplied or what omitting it defaults to.
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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('full details of a specific ticket') and pins down the identifier format with the CPD-123 example. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like search_tickets or get_my_tickets, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.
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?
The phrase 'by key' implicitly signals this is for direct lookup when the key is already known, as opposed to search_tickets or get_my_tickets. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative to route against.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.