set_collaboration_task_status【需要登录】被指派人可设 TODO/DOING/DONE/DECLINED；只有指派人可设 CANCELLED。DONE/DECLINED 的 note 会作为完成留言/婉拒理由并通知指派人。不能代替他人宣称工作已完成。结果不明或超时后先查询现值，不要自动重发；服务没有持久请求去重键。 用 list_collaboration_tasks(done=true) 或 get_collaboration_goal(includeClosed=true) 核对。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| taskId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations, the description discloses login requirements, role-based restriction (assignee vs assigner), note side effects where DONE/DECLINED notifies the assigner, and lack of a persistent dedup key. These behavioral details align with destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, with no contradiction.
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 dense and front-loaded with login and role constraints, then covers side effects, retry safety, and verification. Every sentence adds operational value; there is no filler or repetition of schema details.
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?
For a state-transition tool with role permissions, notification side effects, and idempotency concerns, the description covers all essential aspects: who can do what, what note does, why retries are unsafe, and how to confirm results. The verification tools are named, which compensates for the absence of an output schema.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and compensates well by explaining status semantics per role and the special meaning of note for DONE/DECLINED. It does not explicitly define taskId or note behavior for other statuses, but the most critical parameter semantics are 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?
Description clearly identifies the verb (set status), resource (collaboration task), and enumerates specific statuses and role-based permissions. It distinguishes itself from generic sibling tools like update_collaboration_task by focusing on status progression and assignment semantics.
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 explicitly instructs the agent to verify with list_collaboration_tasks(done=true) or get_collaboration_goal(includeClosed=true) after uncertain results or timeouts, and not to auto-retry. It does not directly contrast with update_collaboration_task, but provides clear operational guidance for when to use verification alternatives.
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.
Each tool has a clearly documented purpose, often with explicit 'when to use' guidance and cross-references, making the vast majority easy to tell apart. A few clusters (get_my_brief, get_my_positioning, get_my_work, get_my_dispatch) and data-overlapping get_my_card vs get_my_profile require careful reading, but descriptions are detailed enough to prevent serious misselection.
The overwhelming majority follow snake_case verb_noun conventions (create_product, update_need, list_my_signups). Minor deviations include noun-only feed names (personalized_feed, random_feed), inconsistency between 'prefs' and 'preferences' in notification tools, and a mix of update_* and set_* for mutations, but the pattern remains predictable overall.
137 tools is an extreme mismatch for any MCP server, far exceeding the 50+ threshold for a score of 1. Even with a broad multi-domain platform, this volume makes tool selection and navigation impractical and heavily burdens the agent's context window.
The surface covers full lifecycles for needs, products, activities/signups, conversations, collaboration goals/tasks, dispatch, profile/onboarding, and supporting resources like companies, parks, policies, and ratings. Deliberate omissions (no user-post creation, no organizer profile editing via agent) are explicitly documented, so core workflows have no obvious dead ends.