Acknowledge or dismiss completed tasks by providing their task IDs to clear them from the list and keep the task queue organized.
Acknowledge/dismiss completed tasks to clear them from the task list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tasks | Yes | Array of task IDs to acknowledge |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal that this is an idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that it applies to completed tasks and clears them from the task list. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, target, and effect efficiently; every word earns its place.
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 one-parameter, idempotent action with annotations covering mutability and destructiveness, the description is sufficiently complete. It omits return-value details, but with no output schema and this level of simplicity that is not a meaningful gap.
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 100% and the only parameter is already described as an array of task IDs. The description adds only the 'completed' qualifier, which is a minor semantic refinement. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description names the action (acknowledge/dismiss), the target (completed tasks), and the visible effect (clear them from the task list). This lets an agent distinguish it from read-only sibling tools like list_tasks and get_task_summary.
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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no explicit exclusions or prerequisites. The phrase 'completed tasks' implies a precondition, but the description leaves the selection logic entirely to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.