LLM Bus

task_resolve

Remove a specified blocker from a task. If no blockers remain, the task status returns to in progress.

Instructions

Resolve a task's blocker(s); returns to in_progress when none remain.

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>"
    },
    "name": "task_resolve"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task_id`	Yes
`blocker`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral effect: the task returns to 'in_progress' when no blockers remain. However, it does not mention whether the action is destructive, reversible, or requires specific permissions. The description adds some context but is incomplete.

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?

The description is very short and to the point, with no unnecessary words. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points) that could improve readability for an AI agent. It is concise but could be better organized.

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 the tool's complexity (mutating state), lack of output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens when blocker is omitted (resolve all?), error conditions, or return values. The many sibling tools also demand clearer differentiation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'blocker(s)' but does not explain what the blocker parameter represents (e.g., blocker ID) or its format. The description adds minimal value over the schema's parameter names and types.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'resolve' and the resource 'task's blockers', and mentions the return to 'in_progress' state. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like task_block. However, it could be more precise about what 'resolve' entails (e.g., removing a specific blocker).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., task_block). The description implies usage for removing blockers but doesn't provide context or prerequisites. Given the large set of sibling tools, this is a significant gap.

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