Retrieve full details of a specific Kanbn task by ID or filename to view its status, description, and metadata. Use this to inspect task information without direct board access.
Retrieve details of a specific task from the Kanbn board.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Path to the project root directory | |
| taskId | Yes | ID or filename of the task to retrieve |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Retrieve details' and does not mention what the returned details look like, behavior when a task is missing, whether the path parameter is needed, or any other operational nuance.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no filler and immediately states the verb and object. It is appropriately concise, though slightly more contextual detail could have been added without reducing clarity.
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?
The schema covers parameters fully, but the description omits output expectations and fails to distinguish this tool from several similar sibling tools. With no output schema or annotations, the description is too thin to fully orient an agent in this large tool family.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented clearly in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieve details') and the resource ('a specific task from the Kanbn board'), so the basic purpose is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from related siblings like kanbn_get_simple_task or kanbn_load_archived_task.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of the many similar retrieval tools. With siblings such as kanbn_get_simple_task, kanbn_load_archived_task, and kanbn_find_simple_task present, the agent is left without selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.