mcp-agent-hub

complete_task

Finalizes a task by recording its result and delivery notes, then automatically notifies the master agent with a report message.

Instructions

完成任务并附交付说明。会自动给主理人发一条 report 消息。

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": "complete_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`agent`	No
`result`	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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add genuinely useful behavior — an automatic report message is sent to the 主理人 — but says nothing about whether completion is reversible, what happens if the task is already complete, or permission requirements.

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, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the side effect second. Nothing redundant.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations and no parameter documentation. The output schema covers return values, but the description leaves key facts unexplained: what 'agent' means, whether re-completion is allowed, and what the auto-report contains.

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 coverage is 0% across three parameters. '附交付说明' hints that result carries delivery notes, but the agent parameter is entirely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving the agent to guess its meaning.

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 (complete_task, 完成任务) and adds the side effect of sending a report to the 主理人. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like update_task or escalate, which could also change task state, so it falls 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 Guidelines3/5

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

The imperative 'complete task' implies the trigger (task is finished), but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of update_task or escalate as alternatives. Usage is left to inference.

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