delega-mcp

get_human_result

Reads the canonical human request result for a task using its exact internal ID. Returns null until two affirmative task-bound replies and completion by the original executor.

Instructions

Read the canonical human request result. Result is null until two affirmative task-bound replies and completion by the original executor/claim. Human attestation does not independently verify physical state. No recipient identifiers or bearer capabilities are returned.

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": "get_human_result"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task_id`	Yes	Existing task's exact internal ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.19.1Oct 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the null lifecycle (two affirmative task-bound replies plus completion by the original executor/claim), the limit of human attestation, and that no recipient identifiers or bearer capabilities are returned. Auth requirements and error behavior are still unstated.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the null precondition and the security caveat. Every sentence carries information; no filler.

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?

For a read tool with no output schema, the description covers lifecycle and disclosure constraints but never describes the shape of a non-null result or behavior for an unknown task_id. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents task_id (exact internal ID, 32-hex pattern). The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at this coverage level.

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: 'Read the canonical human request result.' An agent knows exactly what it fetches. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_human_request, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied — the null-until conditions hint at when a meaningful result exists, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or guidance on choosing between this and get_human_request.

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