delega-mcp

complete_task

Mark a task as completed and attach structured evidence such as commits, PRs, CI checks, or deploy SHAs to prove the work was done, required when the task's evidence policy demands it.

Instructions

Mark a task as completed. Attach evidence — structured proof the work happened (commit, PR, CI check, deploy SHA, artifact/URL, command output). Evidence is always welcome and is REQUIRED on tasks whose evidence_policy is 'required' (there, at least one strong kind — commit/pr/ci_check/deploy_sha/artifact_url — must be present; command_output alone is rejected). Evidence is a durable, falsifiable claim recorded on the task; it is not executed or verified by Delega.

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": "complete_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`task_id`	Yes	The task ID to complete
`evidence`	No	Structured completion evidence; required when the task's evidence_policy is 'required'
`claim_generation`	No	Current owned claim generation; required for registered human requests
`expected_revision`	No	Current task revision; required for registered human requests

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.19.1Oct 27, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / claim_generation

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Current owned claim generation; required for registered human requests",
+  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / expected_revision

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Current task revision; required for registered human requests",
+  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.19.0Sep 11, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / task_id / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  }
-]
```
- addedInput schema / properties / task_id / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "number"
+]
```
Addedv1.18.2Jul 29, 2026
Removedv1.13.1Jul 25, 2026
Changed3 schema fields changedv1.2.1May 1, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / task_id / anyOf
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "number"
+  }
+]
```
- removedInput schema / properties / task_id / type
```
Removed value: -"integer"
```
First observedv1.0.3Mar 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it explains that evidence is a durable, falsifiable claim, that it is not executed or verified, and that command_output-only evidence is rejected for required-policy tasks. It omits details such as permissions, idempotency, and what happens if completion is attempted without required evidence.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by evidence requirements and then the durability caveat. Every sentence adds operational value without repetition or waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides substantial context about evidence handling that is not in the schema. It is nearly complete, but it does not address mutation side effects or when claim_generation and expected_revision matter, leaving some behavioral context to the schema descriptions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema for the evidence parameter: strong evidence kinds are required under a 'required' policy, and command_output alone is insufficient.

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 and resource: 'Mark a task as completed.' It is specific enough for an agent to understand the action, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like set_task_state or update_task.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explains when evidence is required via evidence_policy and which evidence kinds satisfy that requirement, including the rejection of command_output alone. It does not state when to use this tool versus set_task_state or update_task, so alternative-routing guidance is incomplete.

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