Retrieve an archived Kanbn task by ID to review or restore its details and history.
Load a task from the archive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Path to the project root directory | |
| taskId | Yes | ID or filename of the task to load |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Load' suggests a read operation, but it does not clarify whether loading changes archive status, what data is returned, or whether any side effects occur. This ambiguity matters because sibling tools like kanbn_unarchive_task and kanbn_restore_task exist.
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 short sentence with no filler and the action is front-loaded. It is concise and readable, though it borders on under-specification for such a simple tool.
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 tool is low-complexity with two parameters and full schema coverage, so the basic invocation can be constructed. However, there is no output schema and the description does not describe return shape, side effects, or how this differs from unarchiving/restoring, leaving some important context missing.
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?
The input schema already documents both parameters completely with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the schema carries the load and a 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Load a task from the archive.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying archived tasks, separating it from kanbn_get_task, but it does not explicitly contrast with kanbn_unarchive_task or kanbn_restore_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?
The phrase 'from the archive' implies the tool is for retrieving archived tasks, giving some usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like kanbn_list_archived_tasks or kanbn_restore_task, so the guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.