Complete a task on behalf of a worker. Inserts a completion record and timer event. Use this to simulate or record task completions via the API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | Optional completion notes | |
| task_id | Yes | Task ID to complete | |
| worker_id | Yes | Worker ID performing the completion | |
| response_value | No | Response value (for text/number/choice tasks) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations, noting that it 'Inserts a completion record and timer event.' This informs the agent about side effects and persistence, which is especially valuable since annotations only provide booleans like readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. No contradiction with annotations.
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, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by side effects and usage. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy or filler.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, and usage adequately. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., task must exist) or return behavior, but these are not essential for a task completion tool with well-defined parameters.
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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter semantics beyond what the schema already explains; it only reaffirms the role of worker_id ('on behalf of a worker') and hints at response_value via 'simulate,' but these are already covered.
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 what the tool does: 'Complete a task on behalf of a worker' and specifically mentions the side effects: 'Inserts a completion record and timer event.' This distinguishes it from siblings like tascan_update_task or tascan_create_event.
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 for when to use: 'Use this to simulate or record task completions via the API.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the use case is clear enough to differentiate from updating or deleting tasks.
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.
Most tools map to a distinct resource+action pair, and the descriptions clearly separate entities like tasks, subtasks, workers, invoices, zones, assets, and reports. A few close pairs (get_report vs generate_report, dispatch_instruction vs dispatch_to_agent, analyze_issue vs auto_resolve) require careful reading, but the descriptions are detailed enough to disambiguate them.
The vast majority follow a tascan_verb_noun pattern with consistent create/get/list/update/delete verbs. Minor deviations like condition_history, server_info, zone_compliance, and one-word find slightly break the otherwise predictable pattern.
At 69 tools, this is far beyond what an agent can efficiently consider, and it bundles several distinct domains into one MCP surface. Even if each tool is individually useful, the combined set is an extreme mismatch for a coherent tool interface.
The surface covers nearly the full lifecycle for projects, events, tasks, subtasks, workers, reports, invoices, zones, assets, issues, and communications. Minor gaps exist (no explicit asset updates/decommissioning, no cancel_invite, no delete_zone), but the main workflows have no dead ends.
