Retrieve a task's persisted closure schedule and last observed status to distinguish actual closure from mere status reads.
Get a task's persisted closure schedule and last observed status. context_ready means the daemon read its status, NOT that the task was closed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_key | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Output schema / properties / result / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "properties": {
- "checked_at": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "format": "date-time",
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "default": null
- },
- "close_at": {
- "format": "date-time",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "current_status": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "properties": {
- "category": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "properties": {
- "id": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "name": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "id",
- "name"
- ],
- "type": "object"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "default": null
- },
- "id": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "name": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "id",
- "name"
- ],
- "type": "object"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "default": null
- },
- "revision": {
- "default": 1,
- "type": "integer"
- },
- "state": {
- "default": "pending",
- "enum": [
- "pending",
- "context_ready"
- ],
- "type": "string"
- },
- "target_status": {
- "minLength": 1,
- "type": "string"
- },
- "task_key": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "task_key",
- "close_at",
- "target_status"
- ],
- "type": "object"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "properties": {
+ "checked_at": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "format": "date-time",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null
+ },
+ "close_at": {
+ "format": "date-time",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "current_status": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "category": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "name"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "name"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null
+ },
+ "revision": {
+ "default": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "state": {
+ "default": "pending",
+ "enum": [
+ "pending",
+ "context_ready",
+ "waiting",
+ "completed",
+ "cancelled",
+ "suspended"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "target_status": {
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "task_key": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "workflow_fingerprint": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null
+ },
+ "workflow_id": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null
+ },
+ "workflow_revision": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "task_key",
+ "close_at",
+ "target_status"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, lowering the burden. The description adds value by clarifying that context_ready means the daemon read the status, not that the task is closed, preventing misinterpretation of the returned data.
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?
Two sentences, both essential. The purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence disambiguates a confusing term without bloat.
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 read-only single-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers the essential semantics and clarifies a domain-specific status value. It could add parameter details, but that gap is minor given the simplicity.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameter. It does not; the only parameter, task_key, is left to inference. The name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no format, source, or constraints, so it under-compensates for the schema gap.
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 ('Get') and resource ('task's persisted closure schedule and last observed status'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling getters. The clarification about context_ready further sharpens what the tool returns.
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 when to use it (when you need closure schedule/status) but doesn't explicitly contrast it with alternatives like get_task_context or get_workflow. No when-not conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.