Quorus

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

claim_task

Claim an expiring file lock in a shared Quorus room to prevent concurrent edits. Returns GRANTED with token or LOCKED with current holder.

Instructions

Acquire an optimistic file lock. Returns GRANTED+token or LOCKED+holder.

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": {
      "room_id": "<room_id>",
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "claim_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`room_id`	Yes
`file_path`	Yes
`description`	No
`ttl_seconds`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.2Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two outcome states (GRANTED+token / LOCKED+holder), which is genuinely useful. However, it omits blocking behavior, TTL semantics, retry guidance, and permission requirements for a mutating lock acquisition.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the lock semantics and result states come first and nothing is wasted.

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?

For a 4-parameter mutating lock tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. An output schema covers return values, but the agent still lacks guidance on parameter meaning, TTL behavior, and conflict handling.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description is the only place semantics could be added, and it says nothing about room_id, file_path, description, or ttl_seconds (including the 300s default). Only the vague mention of a 'token' hints at any parameter 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?

The description gives a specific verb (Acquire) and resource (optimistic file lock), which is far more informative than the tool name alone. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling release_task, leaving that pairing implicit.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus release_task or any other sibling, and no preconditions (e.g., same room_id/file_path needed for release). Usage must be inferred entirely from the lock metaphor.

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