Record that a task is blocked by other tasks by specifying blocker task IDs, documenting dependencies in the issue tracker.
Record that a task is blocked by other tasks (Jira: 'is blocked by').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | task id such as T-007 (T-7 and 7 also work) | |
| blockers | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never says whether the call replaces or appends to existing blockers, whether blocker tasks must already exist, whether a blocked task's status changes, whether the operation is idempotent, or what errors look like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the Jira parenthetical is the one extra clause and it earns its place by clarifying semantics. Nothing is redundant.
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-required-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition leaves too much unresolved: additive vs. replacement semantics, precondition that blocker tasks exist, and effect on the blocked task's status. It is directionally correct but not sufficient to invoke confidently.
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 50%: `id` and the blocker items are documented, but the `blockers` array itself is undescribed. The description does not resolve the critical ambiguity of whether `blockers` replaces the existing blocker set or adds to it, nor whether order matters. With half the schema undocumented, the description needed to compensate and does not.
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 ('Record that a task is blocked by other tasks') and pins the direction with the Jira parenthetical, which implicitly distinguishes it from the inverse sibling unblock_task. It does not explicitly name siblings, so it falls 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The 'is blocked by' phrasing implies the relationship direction and therefore when to call it rather than unblock_task, but the description never states when to use it, what preconditions exist (blockers must exist?), or that unblock_task removes the link. Usage is only inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.