Skip to main content
Glama
Hive-Academy

π“‚€π“’π“‹Ήπ”Έβ„•π•Œπ”Ήπ•€π•Šπ“‹Ήπ“’π“‚€ - Intelligent Guidance for

by Hive-Academy

report_step_completion

Track step completion results, submit execution data, and receive intelligent guidance for the next steps in the Anubis MCP Server's AI-driven workflow orchestration.

Instructions

Report step completion results and get next step guidance.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
executionDataNoResults from local execution
executionIdNoExecution ID (optional if taskId provided)
executionTimeNoExecution time in ms
resultYesExecution result
stepIdYesCompleted step ID
taskIdNoTask ID (optional if executionId provided)

Implementation Reference

  • The @Tool-decorated handler function implementing the report_step_completion MCP tool logic. Processes input, validates executionId, delegates to StepExecutionService.processStepCompletion, and returns structured response.
    @Tool({
      name: 'report_step_completion',
      description: `Report step completion results with structured data and get next step guidance.`,
      parameters:
        ReportStepCompletionInputSchema as ZodSchema<ReportStepCompletionInput>,
    })
    async reportStepCompletion(input: ReportStepCompletionInput) {
      try {
        // Final validation - we must have an executionId at this point
        if (!input.executionId) {
          return this.buildErrorResponse(
            'No execution identifier provided',
            'Either taskId or executionId must be provided',
            'MISSING_EXECUTION_ID',
          );
        }
    
        // βœ… DELEGATE to StepExecutionService with structured data
        const completionResult =
          await this.stepExecutionService.processStepCompletion(
            input.executionId,
            input.stepId,
            input.result,
            input.executionData,
            input.validationResults,
            input.reportData,
          );
    
        return this.buildResponse({
          success: true,
          message: `Step '${input.stepId}' completion reported successfully`,
          result: input.result,
          hasNextStep: Boolean(completionResult?.nextStep),
          nextStepAvailable: completionResult?.nextStep ? true : false,
        });
      } catch (error) {
        return this.buildErrorResponse(
          'Failed to report step completion',
          getErrorMessage(error),
          'STEP_COMPLETION_ERROR',
        );
      }
    }
  • Input schema validation using Zod for the report_step_completion tool parameters, including execution details, results, and optional data.
    const ReportStepCompletionInputSchema = z
      .object({
        taskId: z
          .number()
          .optional()
          .describe('Task ID (optional if executionId provided)'),
        executionId: z.string().describe('Execution ID'),
        stepId: z.string().describe('Completed step ID'),
        result: z.enum(['success', 'failure']).describe('Execution result'),
        executionTime: z.number().optional().describe('Execution time in ms'),
    
        // βœ… MINIMAL: Only actually used fields based on analysis
        executionData: z
          .object({
            // Core fields - most commonly used
            outputSummary: z
              .string()
              .optional()
              .describe('Brief summary of what was accomplished'),
            filesModified: z
              .array(z.string())
              .optional()
              .describe('List of files that were modified'),
            commandsExecuted: z
              .array(z.string())
              .optional()
              .describe('List of commands that were executed'),
    
            // Quality validation - simple boolean
            qualityChecksComplete: z
              .boolean()
              .optional()
              .describe('Whether quality checks were completed'),
    
            // Optional implementation details
            implementationSummary: z
              .string()
              .optional()
              .describe('Summary of implementation approach taken'),
          })
          .optional()
          .describe('Essential execution data'),
    
        // βœ… MINIMAL: Basic validation results
        validationResults: z
          .object({
            allChecksPassed: z
              .boolean()
              .describe('Whether all validation checks passed'),
            issues: z.array(z.string()).optional().describe('List of issues found'),
          })
          .optional()
          .describe('Basic validation results'),
    
        // βœ… MINIMAL: Optional report data for advanced tracking
        reportData: z
          .object({
            stepType: z
              .string()
              .optional()
              .describe('Type of step that was completed'),
            keyAchievements: z
              .array(z.string())
              .optional()
              .describe('Key achievements in this step'),
          })
          .optional()
          .describe('Optional report data'),
      })
      .refine(
        (data) => data.taskId !== undefined || data.executionId !== undefined,
        {
          message: 'Either taskId or executionId must be provided',
          path: ['taskId', 'executionId'],
        },
      );
  • Tool registration via @Tool decorator specifying name, description, and schema.
    @Tool({
      name: 'report_step_completion',
      description: `Report step completion results with structured data and get next step guidance.`,
      parameters:
        ReportStepCompletionInputSchema as ZodSchema<ReportStepCompletionInput>,
    })
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description mentions reporting results and getting guidance, but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it modifies state, what happens if reporting fails, or what format the guidance takes. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 extremely concise at just 7 words, efficiently stating the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the primary action ('report') and outcome ('get next step guidance'). While perhaps too brief given the tool's complexity, every word earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, workflow execution context), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'next step guidance' looks like, how results affect workflow state, or the relationship between executionId and taskId. For a reporting tool in a workflow system with many sibling tools, more context about its role and behavior is needed.

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 the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'step completion results' which aligns with the 'stepId' and 'result' parameters, but provides no additional context about parameter relationships or usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the tool's purpose as 'Report step completion results and get next step guidance', which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('report') and resource ('step completion results'), but doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_step_guidance' or 'get_next_available_step'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what makes this tool unique.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_step_guidance', 'get_next_available_step', and 'execute_transition', there's no indication of when this reporting tool is appropriate versus those guidance/execution tools. The description simply states what it does without context about usage scenarios or prerequisites.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Hive-Academy/Anubis-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server