Veynod

Agent Escalate To Human

agent_escalate_to_human

Stop and escalate a task to the human commander for a decision.

With ``question`` (and up to 5 options [{id, label, consequence}]) you keep
the task: it waits in WAITING_HUMAN with its lease paused, and you get an
escalation.resolved event with the decision, which is also appended to the
continuation pack. default_on_timeout applies at due_at.

topic: technical (default) | money | identity | legal | data_deletion |
external_commitment. Under semi or full automation (get_orientation
automation.mode) a technical question is refused with
decide_with_safe_default: choose the safest default, note it on the task
and continue. Under full automation the other topics never block you.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "task_key": "<task_key>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "agent_escalate_to_human"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`agent`	No
`topic`	No		technical
`due_at`	No
`reason`	Yes
`options`	No
`blocking`	No
`question`	No
`route_to`	No
`task_key`	Yes
`context_docs`	No
`fencing_token`	No
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional. Retries with the same key and arguments within 24 h replay the first result (replayed=true) without a second write; a different body with the same key is idempotency_key_reused.
`expected_version`	No
`session_batch_id`	No
`default_on_timeout`	No
`recommended_option`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, while the description adds substantial behavior: the task enters WAITING_HUMAN with its lease paused, the caller receives an escalation.resolved event, the decision is appended to the continuation pack, and default_on_timeout applies at due_at. It also discloses topic-dependent automation behavior and the decide_with_safe_default refusal path.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with purpose and core behavior, then moves cleanly into topic and automation constraints. It is dense but appropriately compact for a 16-parameter tool, with no obvious filler text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the core escalation lifecycle and automation edge cases well, and an output schema exists for return values. For a complex 16-parameter tool with very low schema coverage, however, it does not explain enough of the optional control parameters to be complete for all invocation scenarios.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 6% across 16 parameters, so the description has to compensate. It adds meaning for question, options, due_at, default_on_timeout, and topic, but leaves important parameters such as blocking, route_to, recommended_option, context_docs, fencing_token, and expected_version unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource: stop and escalate a task to the human commander for a decision. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate it from likely siblings such as request_human_review or agent_handoff_task.

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 explains the escalation lifecycle and gives explicit topic-based constraints, including that technical questions are refused under semi/full automation and that other topics do not block under full automation. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or say when to prefer them over this escalation path.

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

All Veynod tools Inspect

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.