Claim a delegated task before working on it to prevent duplicate work by two agents. First acceptance wins, ensuring only one agent proceeds.
Claim a delegated task before working on it (first accept wins — prevents two agents doing the same work).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes | ||
| agentId | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| task | Yes | ||
| reason | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait — first-accept-wins semantics that prevent duplicate work — which is valuable. But it omits what happens on a losing claim (error vs. no-op), idempotency, and any auth requirements for agentId.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical efficiently conveys the concurrency rationale. Nothing is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 core concurrency rationale is present. The main gap is the failure path when a task is already claimed, which is central to the 'first accept wins' framing but never spelled out.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the two required parameters (taskId, agentId) have no schema descriptions. The description implies a task identifier but says nothing about agentId — whether it is the claiming agent's own identity or something else — so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (claim) and resource (delegated task) plus the scope of the operation, so it is distinct from release_claim and complete_claim. It stops short of naming a sibling by name, so differentiation requires a bit of inference from the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'before working on it' gives timing guidance (claim precedes work), which implies when to call it. However, it never addresses alternatives such as check_collision, claim_intent, or complete_claim, nor when-not to call it, leaving routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.