get-taskRetrieve a task's complete details, including its description, by providing the task key such as OPS-42.
Fetch one task by its key (e.g. OPS-42), including its description.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Task key like OPS-42 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description indicates read behavior ('Fetch') plus that the result includes the task description field. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but for a simple read there are no destructive or mutating traits to disclose. It could mention not-found behavior, but that's a minor gap for a simple get tool.
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 key identification and what's returned. 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?
Simple one-param get tool, so completeness is mostly met. However, no annotations and no output schema means it doesn't disclose error/not-found behavior or permission requirements, though for a simple fetch by key it's otherwise sufficient. Sibling context clarifies there are related list/update tools.
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 documents the key parameter with format example, and the description reinforces the key's purpose by tying it to the task identifier. There is only one parameter, so no significant gap. The description adds context about type of key.
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 ('Fetch'), resource ('one task'), and key identifier format with an example ('OPS-42'). This clearly distinguishes it from list-tasks, which retrieves multiple tasks.
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 description implies appropriate use: fetch a single task by key. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention list-tasks as the alternative for broader queries, so guidance is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.