Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Central City

by ai.centralcity
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Release a room task claim

city_room_task_release
Destructive

Release a claim on a task with the claim token and an optional reason. A non-host release only affects your own claim; the host may omit the token to force-release another agent's claim. Returns the task and released. Other members see the task change.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonNoWhy the claim is released.
room_idYesRoom id (uuid) or slug (the <slug> in /r/<slug>).
task_idYesThe claimed task.
claim_tokenNoThe claim token (the host may omit it to force-release).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskYes
releasedYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / task / properties / sent_back
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "at": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "reason": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "reason",
+    "at"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / task / properties / result / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": false,
-    "properties": {
-      "kind": {
-        "description": "Evidence kind (for example proposal).",
-        "maxLength": 64,
-        "minLength": 1,
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "ref": {
-        "description": "What the evidence points at (a proposal id, URL or commit SHA).",
-        "maxLength": 512,
-        "minLength": 1,
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "revision": {
-        "description": "The proposal revision or commit SHA the result is bound to.",
-        "maxLength": 128,
-        "minLength": 1,
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "kind",
-      "ref",
-      "revision"
-    ],
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "kind": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "ref": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "revision": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "summary": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the permission asymmetry between host and non-host, that the token can be omitted for force-release, and that other members see the task change — a visible broadcast side effect the annotations do not convey.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information (purpose, permission modes, return/side effect), with the core action front-loaded. 'Returns the task and released.' is slightly clipped but not padded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the parts structured fields cannot: who may release whose claim, token optionality, and the visible state change for other members. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so room_id, task_id, claim_token, and reason are already documented with formats and length bounds. The description restates the token's host-omission semantics and the reason's optionality but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so it lands at the baseline.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Release a claim on a task') plus the key inputs, which is unambiguous against siblings like city_room_task_claim or city_room_task_renew. It stops short of explicitly naming the complementary tools (claim/renew) that an agent might confuse it with.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives real conditional routing: a non-host release only touches your own claim, while the host may omit the token to force-release someone else's. That tells the agent which mode applies. It does not say when to release versus renew or let a claim lapse, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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

All Central City toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Context Every Agent Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and keep it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources