get_taskRetrieve a single task's description and key fields by providing its task ID. Use this to access detailed task information from Teamwork projects.
Fetch a single task with description and key fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes | Teamwork task id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that as a read operation. It adds a little context by indicating the response includes the description and key fields, but it does not detail which fields count as key or mention any other behavioral aspects beyond what annotations provide.
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?
The description is a single efficient sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word contributes useful meaning.
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 one-parameter read tool with a readOnly annotation, the description is nearly complete. It does not enumerate all returned fields, and there is no output schema, but the low complexity and clear annotations make this a minor gap rather than a serious deficiency.
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?
The input schema fully documents taskId with a clear description ('Teamwork task id'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameter, leaving the schema to carry the semantic burden, which warrants the baseline score of 3.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Fetch') and a specific resource ('a single task'), and mentions what is included ('description and key fields'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_tasks (which fetches multiple tasks) and update_task/create_task (mutations).
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 implies the correct use case: retrieving one task by ID, which differentiates it from list_tasks for bulk retrieval and create_task/update_task for writes. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.