Retrieve a single task by UUID with full details, including title, description, due date, status, priority, and linked assignee, creator, contact, and deal.
Get a single task by UUID with full details — title, description, due date, status, priority, and the linked assignee, creator, contact, and deal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Task UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a safe read, and the enumeration of returned fields compensates for the missing output schema, but it says nothing about error behavior for an unknown UUID (empty vs. error), permissions, or whether soft-deleted tasks are returned.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the field list trailing as supporting detail. No filler or redundancy.
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?
For a simple single-record read with one fully documented parameter, the description covers what is returned (including linked assignee, creator, contact, deal), which substitutes for the absent output schema. Only the not-found/permission behavior is unaddressed.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented as 'Task UUID' with format uuid, so the description adds only the redundant phrase 'by UUID'. Baseline 3 is appropriate; nothing about ID source or format handling is added.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (get a single task) plus the identifier type (UUID), which is enough to tell it apart from conduyt_list_tasks and the mutation siblings like update_task/complete_task. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it is not 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?
Usage is only implied by 'single task by UUID' — the agent must infer that this is the right tool when it already has an ID and wants the full record rather than the list. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of what to do if only a title/search term is known.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.