mcp-agent-hub

escalate

Reports a blocked subagent task to the master and sends an escalation message, optionally marking the task as blocked when a task ID is supplied.

Instructions

子代理专用：遇到阻塞时上报主理人。会把任务标为 blocked（若提供 task_id）并给 master 发一条 escalation 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": {
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "escalate"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the key side effect (task marked blocked) and makes it conditional on task_id being supplied, plus the escalation message to master. It doesn't state permissions, reversibility, or who can invoke it beyond the sub-agent qualifier, so not a 5.

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?

A single compact sentence with the audience qualifier and the conditional behavior front-loaded. No wasted text; it uses the space efficiently.

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

Completeness4/5

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 needn't be explained. The description covers the mutation side effect and the required condition for blocking, which is most of what an agent needs. The undefined 'agent' param is the main minor gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for task_id (optional; triggers marking the task blocked) and implies the message content. However, the 'agent' parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of three params undocumented in both schema and description.

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 states a specific action (escalate/report to master when blocked) and the resource affected (marks task as blocked, sends an escalation message). The '子代理专用' (sub-agent only) qualifier helps distinguish it from siblings like report_progress or send_message, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

It clearly states when to use it: '遇到阻塞时' (when encountering a block). This is a clear triggering condition. It doesn't name alternative tools (e.g., report_progress or send_message) or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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