Retrieve a specific task by its ID to access task details. When the ID is unknown, search using settings_tasks_list to locate it first.
Retrieve one task by its required ID. Use settings_tasks_list to search when the ID is unknown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Task ID | |
| includeSubtasks | No | Include subtasks in the response |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+}v2.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that this is a single-task fetch requiring a known ID, which is useful but does not go deeper into error handling, permissions, or response semantics. No contradiction exists; the description aligns with the annotations.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the alternative tool is introduced efficiently without repeating schema details.
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 simple get-by-ID tool with rich annotations, a complete output schema, and only two parameters, this description is sufficient. The routing note to settings_tasks_list closes the main ambiguity an agent would face.
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%, with both id and includeSubtasks documented. The description only repeats that ID is required, adding no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('one task') and clarifies the lookup key (ID). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling settings_tasks_list, so an agent can immediately tell this is the fetch-by-ID tool, not the search tool.
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?
It explicitly gives a decision rule: use settings_tasks_list when the ID is unknown. This tells the agent exactly when to pick an alternative and removes ambiguity about search vs. direct retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.