tower-mcp

next_task

Request a task whose module is safe to start now, so AI agents avoid editing collisions on a shared repository.

Instructions

Ask the sequencer for a task whose module is safe to start right now.

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": {
      "agentId": "<agentId>",
      "repo": "<repo>"
    },
    "name": "next_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	Yes
`repoId`	No
`agentId`	Yes
`projectId`	No
`candidates`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task`	Yes
`reason`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 30, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at sequencer coordination and module-safety, but does not disclose whether fetching reserves/locks the task, what happens when no safe task exists, whether it mutates state, or any auth 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's action and selection criterion.

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?

The output schema covers return values, so that need not be explained. But for a coordination tool with five undocumented params and zero annotations, the description omits essential context about inputs and side effects, leaving the agent under-informed.

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?

Five parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no parameter explanation in the description. The phrase 'whose module is safe' loosely gestures at the module concept likely tied to the 'candidates' array, but required inputs agentId and repo, and optional repoId/projectId/candidates, are entirely unexplained.

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 verb and resource ('Ask the sequencer for a task') and adds a meaningful qualifier ('whose module is safe to start right now'), which conveys collision-aware selection. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from potentially overlapping siblings like pending, list_tasks, or accept_task, so it stops 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?

Usage is implied: an agent should call this when it wants to begin work and needs a task that won't collide. However, the description never says when to prefer this over pending, list_tasks, or accept_task, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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