gpsem

État d'un traitement

getTask

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the status of an API-launched process. Get progress details and a finished flag indicating whether the task is complete.

Instructions

État d'un traitement — Avancement d'un traitement lancé par l'API (finished = true quand terminé). — (GET /sites/{siteId}/taches/{id})

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "siteId": "<siteId>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "getTask"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`siteId`	Yes	ID site encodé (hashid)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond those annotations: the resource represents an asynchronous API-launched treatment and that finished=true signals completion, which helps the agent interpret polling semantics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short, front-loaded with the core meaning, and every element (status, finished flag, endpoint) earns its place. The punctuation-separated structure keeps the information scannable.

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 the simple two-parameter, read-only design, the description is largely complete: it identifies the async nature, the completion signal, and the route. Without an output schema, some return details are left unspecified, but the essential polling contract is present.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 50%: siteId is documented as an encoded hashid, while id has only a type. The endpoint string in the description clarifies that id is the task identifier, adding modest meaning, but the description does not otherwise compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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?

The description clearly identifies the resource as the status/progress of an API-launched task, and the finished=true flag removes ambiguity about completion. It is not a pure tautology because it adds the endpoint and async-job context, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives. The only hint is the phrase 'lancé par l'API', which implies polling an async job, but an agent is given no explicit direction about choosing this tool over the many sibling getters.

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

Deploy Server