Retrieve a context bundle for a sprint, task, or subtask by id, including description, dependencies with merge commits, spec link, notes, and changed files.
Context bundle for one item: description, dependencies with merge commits, spec link, notes, and the list of files the dependencies changed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Item id: sprint '1', task '1.2', subtask '1.2.3' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint already declares that this is a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying exactly what information the bundle contains, which is important because no output schema exists. It does not discuss size, performance, or failure 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?
A single sentence front-loads the purpose and then lists the bundle contents efficiently. There is no redundant or filler text.
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?
Because there is no output schema, the description must explain the return contents, and it does so by enumerating the bundle fields. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter read-only tool, though it could better situate itself among the many sibling task-inspection 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?
There is only one parameter, and the input schema fully documents it with examples ('1', '1.2', '1.2.3') at 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is high.
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 concrete resource and enumerates the bundle contents (description, dependencies with merge commits, spec link, notes, changed files), so an agent knows what this tool returns. It does not differentiate from siblings such as tasks_show or tasks_view, which keeps it from a 5.
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 phrase 'for one item' implies single-item usage but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison with alternatives like tasks_show or tasks_list. The agent must infer when this richer bundle is preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.