get_playbook_taskRetrieve a specific playbook task by ID to inspect task details and support incident response workflows.
Retrieves a specific playbook_task by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the playbook task (fills `{id}` in /v1/playbook_tasks/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `playbook_task_id` argument. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on error behavior for missing ids, no indication of what object shape is returned, and no scoping/auth context, which is the bare minimum with annotations present.
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 short sentence with the verb and lookup key front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a get-by-id tool in a large sibling set, the description does nothing to orient the agent on retrieval context or usage, leaving it only minimally viable.
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 parameter's description already explains that it fills `{id}` in the path and that there is no `playbook_task_id` argument. The description contributes nothing further about the parameter, 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?
States a specific verb (Retrieves) and resource (playbook_task) with the lookup key (by id), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from siblings such as get_playbook or update_playbook_task, leaving the agent to infer that this is the read-by-id counterpart.
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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_playbook or update_playbook_task. There is no mention of prerequisites, when the tool is not appropriate, or how to obtain the id in the first place.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.