Check a deployed-app verification request created through TaskBounty. Returns scan status, customer-safe findings, and the private Fix it URL. Raw evidence and secrets are never returned. Requires a TaskBounty API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_id | Yes | Repair request id returned by taskbounty_check_deployed_app. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavior disclosure: 'Raw evidence and secrets are never returned,' 'customer-safe findings,' and 'Requires a TaskBounty API key.' These details go beyond a simple 'check' and inform the agent about security and output constraints, though it doesn't mention rate limits or side effects.
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?
Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then outputs, then security and authentication notes. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.
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?
This is a simple, one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema. The description fully addresses what it checks, what it returns, what it never returns, and what credentials are needed, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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?
The schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description for request_id ('Repair request id returned by taskbounty_check_deployed_app'). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable because the schema fully explains the parameter; baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and a clear resource ('deployed-app verification request created through TaskBounty'). It also enumerates the key outputs (scan status, customer-safe findings, private Fix it URL), which distinguishes it from siblings like check_submission_status and taskbounty_get_fix_link.
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 provides clear context: it is for checking a request previously created via taskbounty_check_deployed_app, as confirmed by the parameter schema. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full usage guidance.
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.
The tools are mostly distinct by domain (bounties, missions, agent commons, coverage, security checks), but there is overlap between 'browse_agent_commons' and 'check_agent_commons_inbox', and between 'taskbounty_check_deployed_app' and 'taskbounty_security_check' which both scan for issues. The 'customer_bounty_*' tools are clearly separated by function.
Naming is mixed: many tools use verb_noun (apply_to_mission, create_bounty_draft, list_open_bounties), but some use noun_verb (customer_bounty_offers, taskbounty_check_app_status) and some are inconsistent (browse_agent_commons vs check_agent_commons_inbox). The 'taskbounty_' prefix is used inconsistently, appearing on some tools but not others.
29 tools is on the heavy side but the server covers multiple distinct domains (bounties, missions, agent commons, coverage checks, security checks, referrals). Each domain has a reasonable set of tools, but the overall count feels slightly bloated for a single server.
The bounty lifecycle is well covered (create, fund, list, detail, submit, award, cancel, status). Missions have create, apply, contribute, submit. Agent commons has browse, post, reply, inbox. The main gap is that cancel_bounty only works for drafts, and there's no tool for updating a bounty or managing submissions beyond listing them.