Retrieve the due date and date details for a specific KanbanFlow task using its board name and task ID, so you can check deadlines before updating or scheduling work.
Get date/due-date information for a task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | ||
| board_name | Yes | Name of the configured board to operate on (see list_boards) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a safe read, but it says nothing about permissions, which date fields exist (start date, due date, both?), or the shape of the result — all of which matter more here because there is no output schema.
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 no filler and the resource stated up front. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than deliberate tightness.
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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it never defines what 'date/due-date information' contains or how the required board_name/task_id pair scopes the lookup, so an agent cannot predict the return value.
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 coverage is only 50%: board_name is documented in the schema with a pointer to list_boards, while task_id is bare. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond 'for a task', so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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 (date/due-date information for a task), which reads clearly as a read-only counterpart to the sibling set_date. It does not explicitly name or contrast with that sibling, so differentiation is left to the agent's inference from the tool names.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative (set_date for writing dates). The agent must infer the read-vs-write split purely from naming.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.