Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

SwiftProbate

by com.swiftprobate
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

assign_task

Destructive

Assign a task to the estate owner or a collaborator who has accepted their invite. Pass assignee_name with the person's name as listed in "People on this estate" (a first name works when it's unique); the result says who it was assigned to, or why it couldn't be (pending invite, no match, more than one match). Pass neither assignee_name nor assignee_user_id to unassign.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYesThe task ID to assign
estate_idYesThe estate to act on. Call list_my_estates first to get this id.
assignee_nameNoName (or email) of the person to assign to, e.g. "Sarah" or "Sarah Jones".
assignee_user_idNoAlternative to assignee_name: the person's user ID from "People on this estate".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / assignee_name
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Name (or email) of the person to assign to, e.g. \"Sarah\" or \"Sarah Jones\".",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / assignee_user_id / description
      Previous value: -"The user ID to assign to, or null to unassign"New value: +"Alternative to assignee_name: the person's user ID from \"People on this estate\"."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With annotations already declaring destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, the description adds valuable context: it describes the outcome message (who it was assigned to or why it failed) and specifies that passing neither parameter unassigns. It stops short of detailing permissions or side effects (e.g., notifications), but the added behavioral clarity is strong.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three well-structured sentences: purpose first, then parameter guidance, then unassign behavior. Every sentence carries necessary information without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation, destructive hint, no output schema), the description covers key aspects: assignment targets, matching rules, failure outcomes, and unassign. It omits edge cases like reassignment behavior or notification side effects, but is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented, but the description adds meaningful semantics: it explains matching rules for assignee_name (unique first name, 'People on this estate'), that assignee_user_id is an alternative, and that omitting both unassigns. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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?

The description states a specific verb (assign) and resource (task), and clarifies the scope: to the estate owner or a collaborator who has accepted their invite. It also implicitly covers unassign behavior. An agent can distinguish this from create_task, edit_task, or update_task_status without ambiguity.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use assignee_name (as listed in 'People on this estate', first name works when unique) and explains that passing neither parameter unassigns. It also notes failure reasons (pending invite, no match, multiple matches). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions among sibling tools.

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

All SwiftProbate toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources