Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
React Development Workflow MCP Server

React Development Workflow MCP Server

by rushit-simform
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

fetch_zoho_task

Retrieve a Zoho Projects task by its ID to view details and status, enabling quick task lookup and project tracking.

Instructions

Fetch task details from Zoho Projects by task 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": {
      "taskId": "<taskId>"
    },
    "name": "fetch_zoho_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskIdYesTask ID from Zoho Projects
projectKeyNoSonarQube project key

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Fetch task details' without explicitly confirming read-only behavior, error handling, or response format. The projectKey parameter, described as a 'SonarQube project key' in the schema, remains unexplained, adding confusion.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core function without unnecessary detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is minimal for a tool with no annotations and no output schema. It fails to specify what 'task details' are returned, how errors are handled, or why projectKey is needed, leaving significant gaps for an agent relying solely on this description.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with 100% description coverage. The tool description adds 'by task ID', which is redundant with the schema's 'Task ID from Zoho Projects'. It does not clarify the role of projectKey or its relevance to Zoho Projects.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Fetch' with the resource 'task details from Zoho Projects' and the key 'by task ID', clearly defining the tool's scope. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like update_task_status and generate_implementation_report.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The verb 'Fetch' implies a read operation, but no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative tool references are provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools