get_taskRetrieve the status and final output of a delegated coding task using its task_id. Returns results, session_id, and usage data when complete.
Task status and, once finished, its final output, session_id and usage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | task_id from start_task |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuine context by explaining the return is state-dependent (output only once finished), which reconciles with idempotentHint=false. It omits what happens for an unknown or still-running task_id, so it adds moderate rather than rich context.
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?
One tight clause with no filler, and the state-conditioned nature of the output is stated up front. It is arguably a touch under-specified rather than 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 does carry the burden of describing returns and does enumerate them (status, final output, session_id, usage). Missing only error/edge-case behavior for an unknown or pending task.
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 100% for the single parameter and the schema already explains task_id comes from start_task. The description adds nothing about the identifier's format or lifetime, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 resource (task) and enumerates the returned payload (status, final output, session_id, usage), which separates it from siblings like list_tasks and get_task_logs. The verb is only implied by the name, so it falls short of 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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus wait_task, list_tasks, get_task_logs, or get_task_diff, and no note about whether it is meant for polling. Usage must be inferred from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.