Skip to main content
Glama

get_task_definition

Retrieve task definitions including configuration and metadata from the Conductor workflow engine to understand task structure and requirements.

Instructions

Get the definition of a task by name. Returns the task definition including configuration and metadata.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskNameYesName of the task

Implementation Reference

  • The handler implementation for the get_task_definition tool. It takes taskName from input arguments, fetches the task definition from the Conductor API endpoint `/metadata/taskdefs/${taskName}`, and returns the response as formatted JSON text.
    case "get_task_definition": {
      const { taskName } = args as any;
      const response = await conductorClient.get(`/metadata/taskdefs/${taskName}`);
      
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: JSON.stringify(response.data, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • src/index.ts:518-531 (registration)
    The tool registration in the tools array, defining the name, description, and input schema (requiring taskName string). This is used for list_tools and validation.
      name: "get_task_definition",
      description:
        "Get the definition of a task by name. Returns the task definition including configuration and metadata.",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          taskName: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Name of the task",
          },
        },
        required: ["taskName"],
      },
    },
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'the task definition including configuration and metadata', which gives some output context, but lacks details on error handling, permissions, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the purpose and return value without unnecessary details. Every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from output.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return value, but lacks context on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, or error handling. Without annotations or output schema, more completeness would be beneficial for agent understanding.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'taskName' clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the definition of a task by name' specifies the verb (get) and resource (task definition). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_task_details' or 'list_task_definitions' by focusing on retrieving the full definition rather than logs, status, or a list. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_workflow_definition' in terms of task vs. workflow scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_task_definition' over 'get_task_details' or 'list_task_definitions', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/opensensor/conductor-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server