set_collaboration_task_status【需要登录】被指派人：TODO→DOING（接受，会通知指派人）/DECLINED（婉拒）/DONE，DOING→DONE/DECLINED，DONE→DOING（撤销完成）；DECLINED、CANCELLED 是终态。只有指派人能把 TODO/DOING 撤回为 CANCELLED。不合法的转移返回 task_transition_invalid。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.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, it discloses login requirement, notification behavior, terminal states, invalid-transition error code, note semantics, and a strong anti-duplication warning with no persistent request deduplication key. These are substantial operational details not inferable from the schema or 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 text is dense but front-loaded: login, actor-specific transitions, special cases, error behavior, note semantics, idempotency caution, and verification alternatives. Every clause adds an operational constraint with no 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?
For a mutation tool with no output schema, it covers authentication, allowed transitions, terminal states, notification side effects, invalid-transition handling, idempotency guidance, and verification paths. No critical agent-facing gap remains.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and adds rich meaning for status transitions and the note field's role on DONE/DECLINED. It leaves taskId largely implicit beyond the tool context, but the state-machine detail is far beyond what the bare enum schema provides.
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 states a specific verb and resource: setting a collaboration task's status, and it details the exact state transitions by actor. It clearly distinguishes the tool's scope from generic task or organization-task updates through its collaboration-task-specific state machine and sibling references.
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?
It provides explicit when-to-use conditions by role: assignees can accept, decline, complete, or undo completion; assigners can cancel TODO/DOING tasks. It also names verification alternatives (list_collaboration_tasks and get_collaboration_goal) for uncertain outcomes, making routing unambiguous.
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.