DZ23 Subagents Universal MCP

Release mission lease

mission_release

Release a claimed mission lease using the token from mission_claim to free the mission for other agents.

Instructions

Release a lease with the token returned by mission_claim.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "mission_id": "<mission_id>",
      "token": "<token>"
    },
    "name": "mission_release"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`token`	Yes	Lease token.
`identity`	No	Harness identity (informational).
`mission_id`	Yes	Mission identifier inside the project.
`project_id`	Yes	Project memory identifier. Not an authorization boundary.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv4.1.0Sep 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations only state negative hints (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It merely restates that a lease is released and mentions the token origin; it does not disclose side effects, failure behavior, or whether the token is invalidated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, no filler, and the most important usage detail is front-loaded: the token source. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple and the schema documents all parameters, so the description is mostly adequate. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what happens after release, such as whether the lease becomes available again or how invalid tokens are handled. For a state-changing operation, that is a noticeable gap.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics to the token parameter by specifying it is the token returned by mission_claim, which helps an agent know where to obtain it. The other parameters are already well described in the schema.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and object ('Release a lease') and adds valuable provenance by saying the token comes from mission_claim. It is clearly distinct from similar sibling actions like mission_cancel, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear usage context: this tool is for releasing a lease using the token returned by mission_claim. It implies when to call it, but it does not provide explicit exclusionary guidance such as 'use mission_cancel instead for missions that are not leased'.

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