Kosmodrom

task_evaluate

Saves a task stage evaluation when the user asks to evaluate work: a recommended bonus factor and a comment, visible to all who see the task. One evaluation per stage (a new one replaces the old); the server marks it final or interim by whether the task is closed, and the factor is a recommendation that does not change tracked time.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "factor": "<factor>",
      "comment": "<comment>",
      "rulesRevision": "<rulesRevision>"
    },
    "name": "task_evaluate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ID`	No	Task ID; preferred over key.
`key`	No	Task number without #, if the ID is unknown.
`stage`	No	Stage: work - execution (default), review, or testing.
`factor`	Yes	Recommended bonus factor, 0 to 2 in steps of 0.1.
`comment`	Yes	Rationale in the language of the workspace data: up to 4 paragraphs, no rates or money amounts. Markdown (paragraphs, headings, lists, bold, italic, tables, links, emoji); attach:, design: and nested ::: doc are not supported.
`rulesRevision`	Yes	Revision of the evaluation rules returned with the stage's evaluation data.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 8, 2026

removedInput schema / $schema

Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

removedInput schema / properties / key / maximum
```
Removed value: -9007199254740991
```
removedInput schema / properties / key / minimum
```
Removed value: --9007199254740991
```

changedInput schema / properties / rulesRevision / description

Previous value: -"Revision of the evaluation rules for this task type and stage."New value: +"Revision of the evaluation rules returned with the stage's evaluation data."

First observedOct 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false); the description adds real behavior: one evaluation per stage, replacement of prior evaluation, server-side final-vs-interim labeling driven by task closure, and that the factor is advisory and does not alter tracked time. It also discloses visibility ('visible to all who see the task'), which no annotation conveys.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and trigger, and every clause carries information (replacement rule, final/interim, advisory factor). It is dense to the point of one long semicolon-chained sentence, which costs a little readability.

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

Completeness4/5

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

No output schema exists, but the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what gets persisted, the one-per-stage replacement rule, how the server classifies the evaluation, and that the factor is non-binding. It is only slightly short on things like permission requirements or the source of rulesRevision beyond the schema note.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks for two key params: 'factor' is a recommendation that does not change tracked time, and 'comment' is visible to everyone who sees the task. The replacement/one-per-stage rule also constrains how a call is composed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a precise verb+resource ('Saves a task stage evaluation') along with the payload it carries (bonus factor, comment) and the trigger. An agent can tell this is the write counterpart to the read-side sibling task_evaluation_context without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit activation condition ('when the user asks to evaluate work'), which is more than most tools offer. It does not, however, name the read-side alternative (task_evaluation_context) or state any exclusions/preconditions, so a 5 is not earned.

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

All Kosmodrom tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?