Atomically claim a ready, runnable task after fetching it, optionally tagging the model label. Save the returned runId and include it in every subsequent execution update.
After get_task, atomically claim a runnable ready task. Optionally include the model label. Save the returned runId and include it in every subsequent execution update.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes | ||
| actorLabel | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.4Does 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 real behavior: the claim is atomic, a runId is returned, and that runId must accompany every later execution update. However, it omits the failure mode when the task is not ready or is already claimed by another agent, and says nothing about permissions or whether the claim expires — significant gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the precondition and the action, each carrying distinct information: sequencing, atomicity, and the runId contract. Nothing is redundant.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned runId and its downstream obligation, and it situates the call in the get_task → start_task → update workflow. It falls short only on error/race behavior and on more precise parameter naming.
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%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It explains the optional label ('model label'), though the naming drifts from the schema's 'actorLabel', and taskId is only implied by 'claim a runnable ready task' rather than described directly. Partial compensation, but not enough to fully cover a 0% documented schema.
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 and resource ('claim a runnable ready task') plus a distinct behavioral trait ('atomically'), which clearly separates it from read siblings like get_task and list_tasks. It does not explicitly contrast with write siblings such as update_task or start_review, so it stops just short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
'After get_task' gives explicit sequencing, and 'runnable ready task' states the precondition that qualifies a task for this call. There is no statement of what to do when the task is not ready or already claimed, and no named alternative for that case, so it is clear context without exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.