Dispatches a waiting Cloud Tasks task immediately, using its queue and task ID, so it runs on the next tick instead of at its scheduled time.
Dispatch one waiting Cloud Tasks task now instead of at its schedule time (it is sent on the next tick).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Task id from tasks_list | |
| queue | Yes | Queue id, key or its function name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact — dispatch is asynchronous, sent on the next tick — but says nothing about permissions required, whether the task is removed, retry/failure behavior, or what happens if the task already ran.
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?
A single sentence with the action and the critical timing distinction front-loaded, and the parenthetical adds needed precision about 'now' meaning the next tick. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.
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 two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly, including asynchronous timing. It is only slightly short on outcome information (e.g., whether dispatch confirmation or a task reference is returned).
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 description coverage is 100%: both 'queue' and 'id' are documented in the schema, including that 'id' comes from tasks_list. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter format or constraints, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
The description gives a specific verb ('Dispatch') and resource ('one waiting Cloud Tasks task'), plus the key scope distinction that it fires now rather than at the scheduled time. It is clearly distinguishable from tasks_list and schedules_run by implication, though it never names them.
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 phrase 'one waiting task' and 'instead of at its schedule time' implies when to use it (forcing early execution of a pending task), but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, prerequisites, or which sibling to consult for task discovery. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.