unfour.ssh.get_taskRetrieve an SSH task's execution steps and local connection binding by taskId, with sensitive step configuration automatically masked.
Returns one SSH task with steps and local connection binding. Sensitive fields inside step configuration are masked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes | ||
| workspaceId | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations by revealing that the returned object includes steps and local connection binding, and that sensitive step-configuration fields are masked. No contradiction found.
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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose in the first sentence and adds the essential security note in the second. Every word contributes value.
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?
Given there is an output schema and the annotations describe the read-only, idempotent nature, the description is sufficiently complete for a get-by-id operation. It addresses the notable extra context (masking, binding, steps) without redundant return-format details. It could clarify workspaceId behavior, but the tool is simple enough to remain functional.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters at all. While 'Returns one SSH task' implies taskId is the selector, the optional workspaceId is entirely unexplained, leaving a semantic gap for that parameter.
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 'Returns one SSH task with steps and local connection binding,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope statement. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list_tasks (plural listing) and read_task_run_log by focusing on task configuration details.
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 this tool is used when a single SSH task's full details are needed, including steps and binding. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context 'one SSH task' is sufficient to separate it from list/run/delete operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.