Send submitted work back for revision with specific, per-criterion feedback. The human revises and resubmits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | Legwork API key (lw_live_…). Optional if the MCP connection sends an Authorization: Bearer header. Get one with legwork_register. | |
| task_id | Yes | ||
| feedback | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description 'send back' implies a state change, but it does not detail side effects, reversibility, or required permissions. The description carries some burden but is not fully transparent.
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 sentences, providing the key information without fluff. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
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?
The description is concise but lacks context on the overall workflow, such as what happens after revision or how feedback is used. It does not explain the parameters, and the existence of many sibling tools suggests that more context could be helpful.
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 33% (only api_key has a description). The tool description does not explain task_id or feedback at all, failing to compensate for the missing parameter descriptions. This is a significant 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?
The description clearly states that the tool sends submitted work back for revision with specific per-criterion feedback, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like approve or cancel. The action is unambiguous.
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 usage when revision is needed, but it does not explicitly differentiate from other actions such as post_task or send_message. It would benefit from stating when to use this over alternatives, but the intended use is still clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: task actions (approve, cancel, post), retrieval (get_task, my_tasks, marketplace), account (register, wallet, topup), messaging (send_message), and intents. No overlapping functionalities.
Mostly verb_noun pattern (cancel_task, get_task, post_task, request_changes, send_message) with some single verbs (approve, register, topup) and nouns (marketplace, wallet) causing slight inconsistency, but all are clear.
12 tools appropriately cover the core operations of a task marketplace without being overwhelming or sparse.
Comprehensive coverage: task lifecycle (create, read, list, update via request_changes, delete via cancel), user management, payments, intents, and marketplace browsing. No major gaps.
