Gravitas-Core-MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

controller_transition

Move a task between states like PLANNING, CODING, or COMPLETED to manage its lifecycle. Use this to update task progress and trigger next steps.

Instructions

Transition task to a new state (PLANNING, CODING, EXECUTING, VERIFYING, FAILED_RETRY, ROLLBACK, COMPLETED).

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": {
      "task_id": "<task_id>",
      "new_state": "<new_state>"
    },
    "name": "controller_transition"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task_id`	Yes
`new_state`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action without detailing effects, side effects, permissions, or error handling. Does it validate transitions? What happens if task doesn't exist?

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with clear action and list of states. No wasted words, but could be more structured with bullet points.

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?

Given no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It does not explain return value, error conditions, or transition logic (e.g., what states are reachable from current state).

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%. The description only lists possible states for new_state but does not explain task_id or provide constraints like valid state transitions. Parameter names are self-explanatory but description adds minimal value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Transition task to a new state' and lists the valid states. It distinguishes from sibling tools like controller_create_task and controller_get_state.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, valid transitions, or when not to use.

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