complete_taskClose a task unit by recording its final status and retrospective, replacing any earlier completion record.
[OPERATOR] Close the task unit with final status and retrospective. A later call replaces the stored completion record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | Final status | |
| task_id | Yes | Task ID | |
| retrospective | No | What went well, what didn't |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev2.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious overwrite semantics – 'A later call replaces the stored completion record' – which tells the agent prior completion data is lost on re-invocation. That is genuinely useful context beyond the structured fields.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the replacement caveat. Only the bracketed '[OPERATOR]' tag is slightly opaque, but 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?
For a 3-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the destructive/non-idempotent profile, the description supplies the one missing behavioral fact (record replacement). No output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not expected. Adequate but not exhaustive.
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 description coverage is 100%, so task_id, status and retrospective are already documented (including the status enum). The description's mention of 'final status and retrospective' merely restates the schema, adding no syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('Close the task unit') plus what the call carries ('final status and retrospective'). It reads clearly enough to separate from siblings like complete_action or get_task_detail, though it never explicitly names or contrasts any of them.
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?
No when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The '[OPERATOR]' prefix hints at a role gate but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice versus complete_action or submit_deliverable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.