Fetch the current state or final result of a delegated task by its task ID to check progress and retrieve output.
Return the current state/result of a delegated task.
Args: task_id: Task id from delegate_task.
Returns: JSON result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a result is returned and that the 'current' state is fetched (implying asynchronous polling rather than blocking), but says nothing about whether the call blocks, how pending vs completed tasks are represented, or error/auth behavior.
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 core purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, with Args/Returns sections kept short. The 'Returns: JSON result.' line is boilerplate that adds little given an output schema exists, but nothing is padded.
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?
An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described. For a single-parameter getter with no annotations, the definition is minimally adequate but omits the async/polling semantics and error behavior an agent needs to call it confidently.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add real value by establishing the provenance of task_id ('from delegate_task'), but gives no format, validity, or error semantics for an invalid id.
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 and resource ('Return the current state/result of a delegated task'), which clearly distinguishes it from the bulk list_tasks and the mutating cancel_task. It does not explicitly name the sibling it complements, but the singular 'task' scope makes the distinction inferable.
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 ties the input to delegate_task ('Task id from delegate_task'), implying this is used to poll a previously delegated job, but it never states when to use this versus list_tasks or review_task, nor any when-not condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.