mcp-agent-hub

report_progress

Reports task progress (0–100) from a subagent to the master and optionally updates status, such as in_progress or blocked.

Instructions

子代理：向主理人汇报任务进度（0-100）。会自动给 master 发一条 report 消息。可同时更新 status（如 in_progress/blocked）。

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>",
      "progress": "<progress>"
    },
    "name": "report_progress"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`agent`	No
`status`	No
`task_id`	Yes
`progress`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

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 disclose a key non-obvious side effect: it automatically sends a report message to the master. It also notes status can be updated simultaneously. It omits auth/prerequisite details but adds real behavioral value beyond the schema.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: it opens by identifying itself as the sub-agent progress reporter, then adds the side effect and status option. No wasted sentences, though it packs multiple ideas into one line.

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 needn't be explained. For a 5-parameter, annotation-free tool the description is adequate on purpose and side effects but leaves half the parameters (task_id, agent, note) semantically unexplained.

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 gives meaningful semantics for progress (0-100 scale) and status (in_progress/blocked examples), but leaves task_id, agent, and note entirely undefined, covering only 2 of 5 parameters.

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: reports task progress (0-100) to the master. It clarifies its role (sub-agent) and side effect (auto report to master), distinguishing it from generic update_task/set_status siblings, though it never names an alternative directly.

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?

Implies usage through 'sub-agent reporting to master' context but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. An agent must infer that progress updates belong here while field changes belong to update_task.

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