Skip to main content
Glama
delega-dev

delega-mcp

by delega-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

complete_task

Mark a task as completed. Attach structured evidence like commits, PRs, or CI checks to prove the work; required when evidence_policy is 'required'.

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYesThe task ID to complete
evidenceNoStructured completion evidence; required when the task's evidence_policy is 'required'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.19.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / task_id / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / task_id / type
      Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "number"
+]
  2. Addedv1.18.2
  3. Removedv1.13.1
  4. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.2.1
    • 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"
  5. First observedv1.0.3

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: evidence is a durable, falsifiable claim that is not executed or verified by Delega, and command_output alone is rejected under 'required' policy. It still omits side effects of completion (state transition, idempotency, what happens if the task is already complete, permissions).

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the evidence contract. Slightly dense with parenthetical detail and a mild redundancy between 'always welcome' and 'REQUIRED', but every clause conveys usable information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone; it adequately covers purpose and the evidence contract but says nothing about the result of completion, downstream automations triggered, or error behavior. Adequate for the core call, incomplete for a mutation tool with zero structured safety/behavior coverage.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by imposing a policy the enum alone does not encode: at least one 'strong' kind (commit/pr/ci_check/deploy_sha/artifact_url) must appear when evidence_policy is 'required', and command_output alone is rejected. That materially shapes how the agent must populate the parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Mark a task as completed.' Clear and unambiguous, but it never distinguishes itself from the closely related sibling set_task_state (or update_task), which an agent could easily pick for the same end state.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Provides conditional guidance about when evidence is required based on the task's evidence_policy, which is genuinely useful. However, it gives no tool-selection guidance about when to call complete_task versus set_task_state or update_task, and names no alternatives.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools