Displays details for one or more sprint, task, or subtask IDs, including description, assignee, dependencies, notes, and derived status, with an optional brief one-line view.
Show one or more items (description, assignee, dependencies, notes, derived status); brief=true prints one line per item.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | ||
| brief | No | One line per item instead of JSON |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description then adds real value by disclosing what the response contains and that status is 'derived' rather than stored, plus the format switch between JSON and one line per item. It omits behavior for nonexistent or malformed ids, which for a lookup tool is the notable remaining gap.
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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the parenthetical field list and the brief flag clause both earning their place. Nothing is repeated or 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?
With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the job of naming the returned fields, and the readOnly annotation covers the mutation risk. What remains thin is the multi-id behavior (partial failures, ordering) for a tool that explicitly accepts an array of ids.
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 coverage is 50% and both parameters are in fact documented in the schema (id format '1.2.3' and brief's one-line behavior). The description adds only the multiplicity hint ('one or more items') and restates brief's effect, so it sits at the baseline rather than compensating for anything missing.
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?
Names a specific verb ('show') and resource ('items') and enumerates the fields returned (description, assignee, dependencies, notes, derived status), so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like tasks_view, tasks_list, or tasks_brief, so the agent cannot tell from the description alone which of these to pick.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions relative to the many sibling readers (tasks_overview, tasks_list, tasks_view, tasks_brief). The only usage-like statement is the brief=true rendering switch, which is about output format, not tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.