LLM Bus

task_ship

Change a task's status from in progress to done. Provide the task ID to complete the transition.

Instructions

Ship a task (in_progress → done).

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_ship"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the state transition, but does not disclose side effects, permissions required, reversibility, or whether it triggers any notifications or side effects. For a state-changing tool, more disclosure is needed.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Extremely concise single sentence with no unnecessary words. The core action and state change are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 simple tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description minimally explains the action but omits important contextual information like return values, error behavior, prerequisites, and differentiation from similar sibling tools (e.g., task_resolve). In a large set of sibling tools, this lack of completeness could lead to incorrect tool selection.

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% and the description does not explain the single parameter 'task_id' beyond its name. It lacks context on what task_id refers to, how to obtain it, or any constraints. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'ship' and explicitly states the state transition 'in_progress → done', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like task_start (which initiates a task) and task_resolve (which might resolve a task differently). The purpose is immediately clear.

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 like task_resolve or other state transitions. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., task must be in in_progress state) or conditions. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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