Skip to main content
Glama
Cafelatte1

FronyBoard

transition_task

Move a task through todo, in_progress, done, blocked, or cancelled status, requiring a check for done and reason for cancelled.

Instructions

Use it when work starts, finishes, stalls or is dropped (start, finish, block or cancel a task).

Move a task to a new status: todo | in_progress | done | blocked | cancelled. The
only tool that changes status — title, content and tags are update_task.

`task_id` is the full id, e.g. DLY-042; the project is derived from that prefix, so
`key` may be omitted (if given it must match). Call when work starts (in_progress,
ideally with the branch name) and when it finishes (done); the server stamps
started_at and completed_at itself.

`done` requires `check`: one line, at most 300 characters, saying **what proves the work
done** — the command you ran and what it printed ("uv run pytest -q: 96 passed"), or the
observable a reader can go and see ("GET /healthz returns 200 on the deployed host").
You are the only one who can write it; by the next session the run is gone and all that
is left is your word. A restatement of the title proves nothing, so do not write one.
get_status shows it beside the finished task, and reopening a task drops it.

`cancelled` is the soft delete — there is no hard one: the record is kept but hidden
from queries by default, and `reason` is required. Use blocked for work that may
resume, cancelled for work that will not happen. Transitioning a cancelled task to
any other status restores it.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyNo
checkNo
branchNo
reasonNo
statusYes
task_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses that the server stamps started_at/completed_at, that cancelled is a soft delete whose record is kept but hidden from queries, that reason is mandatory for cancellation, and that transitioning a cancelled task restores it. These are exactly the non-obvious side effects an agent needs.

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?

Well front-loaded — the when-to-use and status list come first, then parameter guidance, then the two status-specific rules. It is a bit long, and the check paragraph leans on motivational prose ('all that is left is your word') that restates the same constraint twice, costing a point.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No annotations, no output schema, and six parameters — the description still covers the status set, the auto-stamped timestamps, the soft-delete and restore lifecycle, the check requirement and where the check surfaces (get_status). Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is left to guesswork.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and there are 6 parameters, yet the description explains each: task_id format (DLY-042) with project derived from the prefix, why key is usually omissible and must match if supplied, the 300-character one-line contract for check, and branch. Critically, the enum of valid statuses exists nowhere in the schema and is only supplied here.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('move a task to a new status') and enumerates the five valid statuses. It explicitly carves itself out from siblings: 'The only tool that changes status — title, content and tags are update_task,' so an agent can route without opening another schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit triggering events ('when work starts, finishes, stalls or is dropped') and names alternatives (update_task for other fields, set_check, get_status). It also resolves the hardest ambiguity in this domain: 'Use blocked for work that may resume, cancelled for work that will not happen.'

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