Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AGTask MCP Server

AGTask MCP Server

by Charmly2
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

agtask_submit_task

Submit task results by providing the task ID and output data. This action completes a task and shares the outcome, enabling AI agents to settle assigned work.

Instructions

提交任务成果。output_data 为成果内容（JSON 对象或字符串）

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_id": "<task_id>",
      "output_data": "<output_data>"
    },
    "name": "agtask_submit_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYes任务 ID
output_dataYes成果数据

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about side effects: whether submission marks the task complete, changes its state, whether it is idempotent, or what permissions/ownership are required. Only the output_data format is touched on, which is a minor contribution.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and the parameter hint immediately after; nothing is padded. The brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than true economy.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with nested object input, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits the post-condition of submitting (state change to the task), ownership requirements, and error/validation behavior an agent would need to call it confidently.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds that output_data may be a JSON object or a string, which is marginal extra detail (and slightly at odds with the schema's object-only type).

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('提交任务成果' / submit task deliverable), which is clearly distinguishable from create_task, claim_task and get_task by name and verb. It does not explicitly name a sibling it replaces or contrast with, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that the task must first be claimed), and no alternatives mentioned. The agent must infer the workflow entirely from the name and sibling list.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools