get_taskRetrieve a task by ID to view its instructions, current status, and the agent's report of what it did and changed.
Returns one task: its instructions, its status and the report the agent wrote (what it did and what it changed).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | The task id, as returned by list_tasks or create_task. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description's added value is the return shape — notably that the report contains what the agent did and what it changed. That is meaningful because no output schema exists. It omits error behavior for an unknown task_id, keeping it short of a 5.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the resource, and every clause (instructions, status, report) describes actual returned content. 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?
For a single-read tool with annotations covering safety, the description fills the most important gap: with no output schema, it tells the agent what comes back. Missing only failure-mode behavior for invalid ids.
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 coverage is 100% with a single documented parameter, so the schema already explains task_id fully. The description adds no format, validation, or lookup semantics beyond what is structured. Baseline 3 applies.
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+resource ('Returns one task') and enumerates the payload: instructions, status, and the agent's report. The singular framing implicitly contrasts with list_tasks, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given in the description. The only usage hint ('as returned by list_tasks or create_task') lives in the schema's task_id description, not the tool description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.