Skip to main content
Glama
mechanic-mcp
by lightward

get_task

Fetch a Mechanic task by handle or ID, returning its full payload including script, options, and subscriptions for Shopify automation.

Instructions

Tasks only: fetch by handle/id with full payload (script, options, subscriptions).

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
urlYes
nameYes
tagsYes
handleYes
scriptNo
optionsNo
subscriptionsYes
subscriptions_templateNo
online_store_javascriptNo
order_status_javascriptNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.7

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose what comes back (script, options, subscriptions), which is meaningful behavioral context, but it never states that the operation is read-only, what happens if the handle does not resolve, or any permission requirements.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the scope constraint first and no filler. Every clause adds information: scope, operation, input form, and payload contents.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and this is a single-parameter getter, which keeps the bar low. Still, an agent gets no guidance on resolving the handle or on the failure case, which is the main gap for a lookup-style tool.

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 0% for the single required `id` parameter, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning by indicating the value may be a handle or an id, but gives no format, case-sensitivity, or example, leaving the agent guessing at acceptable input shape.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Tasks only: fetch by handle/id with full payload" states a specific verb (fetch) and resource (task), and the "Tasks only" prefix distinguishes it from sibling get_doc, which would otherwise be ambiguous. It stops short of naming a sibling outright but the scope boundary is legible.

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?

The phrase "full payload (script, options, subscriptions)" implies you call this when you need the complete task object rather than a summary, which hints at when to prefer it over search_tasks or similar_tasks. However, it never explicitly says when not to use it, nor that an id/handle must first be obtained from a search tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.