Mark the job as completed. This sanitizes PII from the context and records a completion summary. Use when all tasks in the job are done.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | No | Omit it: the run's own job is used. | |
| summary | No | Brief summary of what was accomplished | |
| in_workspace | No | Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / in_workspaceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected.",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, non-open-world call. The description adds meaningful side-effect detail beyond that: it sanitizes PII from the context and records a completion summary. It does not note that calling it on an already-completed job (non-idempotent) may fail, which is the remaining gap.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the side effects, then the usage trigger. No filler or redundancy.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description covers the essential state transition and its effects, and all parameters are documented in the schema. It is nearly complete; only edge cases (re-completion, failure modes, what the completion summary is used for) are unaddressed.
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 description coverage is 100%, so job_id, summary, and in_workspace are already documented. The description only loosely echoes the summary parameter and says nothing about in_workspace or the default job_id behavior, so it adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Mark the job as completed') plus the two side effects (PII sanitization, completion summary). It is clearly distinct from job_read_context and job_update_context by name/action, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the closest alternative, job_escalate.
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?
Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use when all tasks in the job are done.' That is a clear usage condition, but there are no exclusions or alternatives (e.g., when to use job_escalate instead, or what to do if the job is abandoned rather than finished).
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.