submit_reportSave a task's Markdown report and mark it reported, enabling planning chats and coding agents to exchange work through local files without manual copy-paste.
Claude Code: save the report for a task and mark the task reported.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Report in Markdown. | |
| project | Yes | Project slug: lowercase letters, digits and hyphens (e.g. my-app). | |
| task_id | Yes | Task ID, e.g. P001. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a second side effect beyond saving a report — the task is marked as reported — but says nothing about auth/permission requirements, whether an existing report is overwritten, or whether resubmission is idempotent.
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 efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action and appends the side effect. The 'Claude Code:' prefix is slightly odd framing but costs little.
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-required-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the happy path but leaves state-change behavior on resubmission, error semantics, and the relationship to get_report unaddressed. Minimally adequate rather than complete.
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%: body, project slug format, and task_id pattern are all documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning (e.g. precedence or how body relates to existing reports), so baseline 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+resource ('save the report for a task') plus the resulting state change ('mark the task reported'). It contrasts implicitly with the sibling get_report (retrieve) but never names alternatives, so the differentiation is left to inference.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the sibling tools (get_report, get_next_task) that an agent might pick instead. The only usage signal is the implicit 'for a task' scoping.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.