mcp-agent-hub

claim_task

Claims an open or blocked task for a subagent to prevent duplicate work; fails and names the current owner if the task is already assigned.

Instructions

子代理：认领 open/blocked 任务，避免重复劳动。已有负责人则会失败并提示持有者。

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>"
    },
    "name": "claim_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`agent`	No
`task_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key failure mode (already-claimed tasks fail and report the holder). However it omits whether the claim is exclusive/locking, what permissions or agent identity are required, and whether a claim can be released — meaningful gaps for a state-mutating tool.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the role, scope, and failure behavior are all front-loaded before any detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the purpose and conflict behavior are covered. But for a two-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, the unexplained `agent` parameter leaves the definition under-specified.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain both parameters. It never mentions the optional `agent` parameter (default empty), leaving unclear whether it identifies the claimer or defaults to the caller; only `task_id` is implicitly conveyed by '认领任务'.

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 and resource (认领任务 / claim task) with a scope qualifier (open/blocked), which separates it from siblings like update_task or complete_task. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast against, 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 Guidelines4/5

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

Says this is for subagents to grab unowned open/blocked work and thereby avoid duplicated effort, and explains what happens when the task is already taken (failure plus notice of the current holder). It gives clear when-to-use context but does not name an alternative tool or state exclusions explicitly.

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