freeagent-mcp-server

Get Task

freeagent_get_task

Read-only

Retrieves a specific task by ID from FreeAgent, returning its details so you can review task information without searching manually.

Instructions

Get a specific task by ID from FreeAgent.

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": {
      "task_id": "<task_id>"
    },
    "name": "freeagent_get_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task_id`	Yes	The ID of the task to retrieve

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.0Nov 6, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedv1.3.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing: it does not say what happens when the ID is unknown or invalid (error vs empty result), nor does it describe the shape or scope of the returned task record.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One short sentence with no filler, and the lookup key is stated up front. It is efficient but arguably under-specified rather than tightened prose.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple single-parameter read with no output schema, the annotations and schema carry most of the load, and the description covers the essentials. The gaps are not-found/error behavior and any hint about the returned object, which matter for an agent deciding how to handle the call.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single task_id parameter is fully documented in the schema with a pattern constraint. The description's 'by ID' merely echoes that, so baseline 3 applies rather than a higher score for added meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get a specific task') plus the lookup key ('by ID') and the owning system (FreeAgent), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like freeagent_list_tasks or freeagent_get_project, so it stops 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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. an existing task ID obtained from freeagent_list_tasks), and no mention of alternatives. The phrase 'by ID' only weakly implies this is the single-record complement to the list tool, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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

Deploy Server