lognexus_state_finish_taskMarks a subtask as completed by ID and returns the updated LogNexus state, so agents can track workflow progress without losing context.
Mark a subtask as completed (equivalent to 'lognexus state finish-task ') and return the updated state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes | Subtask identifier, e.g. 'T1'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden: it correctly signals a mutation and helpfully discloses that the updated state is returned (relevant since there is no output schema). However, it says nothing about idempotency, error behavior for invalid or already-completed task IDs, or whether the parent task's state is affected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the return behavior second. The CLI-equivalent parenthetical is compact and aids routing rather than padding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter mutation it covers the essentials: what changes and what comes back. Missing are failure modes, idempotency, and any note on the parent task or state file, which matter more because no annotations exist to cover them.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single taskId parameter is documented with an example format ('T1'). The description's '<id>' reference matches the schema but adds no new semantics; baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Mark a subtask as completed') plus the side effect of returning updated state, so the agent knows exactly what it does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like lognexus_state_set_task or lognexus_state_clear, which is the only gap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The action implies when to use it (a subtask reaches completion), but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of the alternatives in the sibling list. An agent must infer that set_task is for modifying fields and clear is for removal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.