NoFuss for OmniFocus

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

nofuss_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve exact OmniFocus tasks or projects by ID, returning selected fields, notes, tags, or optional project descendant trees with pagination.

Instructions

Get 1–20 exact IDs with per-ID outcomes, preserving order and duplicates. entity defaults to task; project returns metadata for any state. Optional tree accepts one project ID: all descendants in native sibling preorder, including completed/dropped work. Tree has its own task view/fields/limit/cursor; follow its live continuation to completion. Brief by default; fields overrides view. Project brief: name/status/type/folder_id; detail adds notes/tags/dates, native direct counts and review interval. Project roots are excluded from task rows. Notes/name use Unicode text windows; tag_ids/notifications use collection windows on exact gets. Follow truncated[field].next_cursor with the matching text/collection field and ID. Unavailable fields are explicit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ids`	Yes
`text`	No
`tree`	No	Project only, one ID. All descendants in native sibling preorder; id/parent_id/project_id always present.
`view`	No		brief
`entity`	No		task
`fields`	No	Overrides view. Project fields: id, name, status, type, folder_id, note, tag_ids, due_at, defer_at, effective_due_at, effective_defer_at, created_at, modified_at, completed_at, dropped_at, floating_time_zone, direct_task_count, direct_completed_task_count, last_review_at, next_review_at, review_interval, planned_at, flagged. Task-only fields reject for projects and vice versa.
`collection`	No	One exact ID and selected field. Native-order element windows; default limit 100, or continued cursor limit.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`read_at`	Yes
`results`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0-alpha.1Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With annotations already covering read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: tree includes completed/dropped descendants in native preorder, project roots are excluded from task rows, defaults, truncation cursors, and explicit unavailable fields. Pagination continuation via truncated[field].next_cursor is genuinely useful. It stops short of explaining error modes.

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?

Very terse for a 7-parameter nested tool and front-loads the core behavior. It is dense and run-on rather than structured, which slightly hurts scannability, but almost every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given an output schema exists, return formatting needn't be described, and the description covers defaults, ordering, tree scope, truncation, and cursor continuation. It is close to complete for a complex read tool, with only minor ambiguity about text-window paging.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 43%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains entity/state behavior, the one-project-ID restriction on tree, that fields overrides view, and how text vs collection windows pair with their cursor fields. Gaps remain around offset/length semantics for text windows.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get 1–20 exact IDs with per-ID outcomes'), and the phrase 'exact IDs' implicitly contrasts with the bulk-oriented sibling nofuss_query. However, no sibling is named, so the differentiation is left for the agent to infer.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives useful context cues ('entity defaults to task', tree applies to 'one project ID', brief by default) but never states when to choose this over nofuss_query or nofuss_overview. Usage is implied by the exact-ID framing rather than spelled out.

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

Deploy Server