backlog.claim_taskClaim a task exclusively for an agent session using a TTL to prevent other agents from processing the same task and avoid multi-agent collisions.
Claims a task with TTL for an agent/session to avoid multi-agent collisions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| source | No | ||
| task_id | Yes | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| session_id | Yes | ||
| ttl_seconds | No | ||
| idempotency_key | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions TTL and collision avoidance, which hints at lock/lease behavior, but does not disclose failure modes (e.g., what happens if the task is already claimed), idempotency semantics, permissions, or side effects like blocking other agents.
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?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes the most important differentiator (TTL). It avoids filler, though it could afford a second sentence for critical caveats without becoming bloated.
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?
With 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence description leaves major gaps: return value, conflict behavior, TTL expiry semantics, and the role of idempotency_key are unexplained. An agent cannot reliably know how to handle a failed claim or retry.
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 0%, so the description should compensate. It gives some context for ttl_seconds ('TTL'), agent_id, and session_id ('for an agent/session'), but provides no added meaning for idempotency_key, note, or source. The description does not explain parameter formats, defaults, or interactions.
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 names a specific verb ('Claims'), resource ('task'), and key mechanism ('TTL', 'agent/session'), and states the purpose ('avoid multi-agent collisions'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like release_task and restore_task.
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 description implies when to use the tool (before working on a task, to prevent concurrent agents from colliding) but does not explicitly mention alternatives, when not to use it, or follow-up actions like release_task. The context is present but exclusions and sibling comparisons are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.